Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Pamela Schwann, Executive Director, Saskatchewan Mining Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Benoit.

Merci.

It is a pleasure to be here today to address the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources as you study the question of resource development in Northern Canada.

My name is Pam Schwann. I'm the executive director of the Saskatchewan Mining Association. Joining me today, as already introduced, are Ms. Tammy Van Lambalgen, vice-president of regulatory affairs and corporate counsel for AREVA Resources Canada, and Mr. Gary Merasty, vice-president, corporate social responsibility, Cameco.

The Saskatchewan Mining Association is an industry-funded organization that is considered to be the voice of the mining industry in Saskatchewan. We have more than 40 member companies, including producers of coal, potash, uranium, metallic and industrial minerals, as well as companies carrying out exploration in the province.

The SMA has submitted a brief to Mr. Lauzon, the committee clerk, entitled “Saskatchewan Mining: Global Leaders”, but in the interests of time and your specific interests, after some general remarks the presentation will focus specifically on the mining industry in northern Saskatchewan.

The main points we would like to bring to your attention are these: the Saskatchewan mining industry is a significant Canadian and global mineral producer; Saskatchewan mining companies operate world-class mining facilities; Saskatchewan mining companies are Canadian and global leaders with respect to aboriginal employment and business development opportunities related to their operations; and, an efficient regulatory and strategic policy system will help ensure that Saskatchewan mining operations continue to deliver benefits to Saskatchewan, Canada, and the world.

The Saskatchewan mining industry is a significant global mineral producer. In 2010 we ranked second in Canada in terms of the value of mineral production, with a value of just over $7 billion. We are the world's number one producer of potash, producing about 31% of the global supply, and are the number two producer of uranium. We currently produce about 18% of the global supply, which is down from about 28% of global production in 2005, when we were the world's number one producer of uranium.

Saskatchewan will continue to be one of Canada's leading mineral producers for the years to come. The existing mining operations have announced intentions of more than $43 billion in investment in the next 20 years in their current operations.

I'm going to skip to page 9 of the presentation you have in front of you. There is a mineral resource map of Saskatchewan on it. The remainder of our presentation today will focus on the activity on the northern third of this map. I have a coloured copy that I'm going to put up so that you know what you're looking at.

Predominantly, there's a yellow oval structure on the map showing the area that involves most of our activities, and that's where the uranium production comes from: the Athabasca Basin region of northern Saskatchewan. On pages 11 and 12 of the presentation we talk about uranium production. Mines in Saskatchewan provide 100% of Canadian uranium production. It was valued at just over $1.2 billion in 2010. The mineral production came from three operations: McArthur River, which on the map is shown as number 48, marked by a red dot; Eagle Point; and McClean Lake.

Specifically, the McArthur River mine is the world's highest-grade uranium mine, with average grades of around 20%, compared with a world average that is just under one per cent. It currently provides the majority of Saskatchewan uranium production and itself is responsible for 15% of the world's uranium supply.

There are currently over 25 years of production from existing mines, and there continue to be new discoveries over broad geographic regions of the Athabasca region. On the mineral resource map of Saskatchewan, these include areas such as Cigar Lake, number 45, Shea Creek, on the west side of the Athabasca Basin, number 33, the Millennium deposit, and the Roughrider zone, just to name a few.

Turning to gold production, Saskatchewan currently has two gold producers: long-time producer Claude Resources, whose Seabee mine is nearing the mark of one million ounces of gold production. More recently, in December 2010, we had another mine start-up, which has started producing gold as well.

In terms of exploration, we have healthy mineral exploration expenditures of approximately $270 million forecast for 2011, with $100 million of this targeted for northern Saskatchewan.

While mining and exploration bring benefits in terms of revenues to companies and governments, mining has also been a key driver of economic and social benefits in terms of employment, business development, and school retention.

On page 15 of your presentation, we have some information with respect to northern employment. Mining companies in northern Saskatchewan are leaders in hiring first nations and Métis people at their operations. Cameco is the number one industrial employer of aboriginal people in Canada.

There are over 3,100 mine and long-term contractor employees at the northern Saskatchewan mines, including 660 residents of Saskatchewan's north. In 2010, a payroll of over $90 million was paid to the direct employees, and contractors paid an additional $217 million to their employees; I should say that this is an update from the numbers in the presentation that refer to 2009 information.

Some of the tools that have assisted us in reaching this employment achievement are surface leases and cooperative tools such as the multi-party training plan and northern career quest, an ASEP-funded program. As shown on page 16 of the presentation, northern mining employees make up an increasing proportion of workers in the higher skilled categories, such as supervisory, technical and trades. That is at 39% now, compared to 22% in 1984.

Business development is highlighted on page 17 of the presentation. Northern mining companies have worked closely with northern economic development agencies to incubate successful northern businesses. These successful businesses, such as Kitsaki Development Limited Partnership, which is the economic development arm of the largest band in Saskatchewan--the Lac La Ronge Indian Band--and Athabasca Basin Development Limited Partnership, are now transferring their business skills that were developed in the north into southern mining operations.

Looking specifically at economic benefits derived from northern mines, in 2009 northern mine operations purchased $279 million in goods and services from northern businesses, which is approximately 62% of all goods and services purchased. In 2010, mining companies purchased goods and services worth over $361 million from businesses based in northern Saskatchewan.

I'd like to turn now to some of the key challenges the mining industry faces.

The first one I'd like to speak to is with respect to regulatory effectiveness. As noted by the commissioner for environmental and sustainable development, the federal environmental assessment process suffers from systemic delays and a lack of coordination between federal departments, and focuses on expensive and frustrating processes without being able to demonstrate value to the environment or society.

While Bill C-9 introduced improvements to CEAA to address some of these issues, these amendments did not apply to projects subject to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission authority; hence, most of the projects in northern Saskatchewan will not see the benefits of these amendments. By comparison, in Australia, the federal and state governments completed a review of BHP's massive copper, gold and uranium Olympic Dam proposal in approximately two years. The significant time difference in reviews places Canadian projects at a competitive disadvantage to uranium projects being developed in other countries.

The mining sector also continues to see increasing regulatory engagement, with Species at Risk and Migratory Birds Convention Acts, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and regulations related to clean air. Also, the lack of integration of the duty to consult policy between federal and provincial agencies on the same project causes capacity issues for both industry and first nations and Métis communities.

The second issue I'd like to briefly speak to is access to highly skilled and highly qualified people. This is a huge challenge for the mining industry going forward due to retirements and also due to expansion. Programs such as the aboriginal skills employment program, ASEP, have been very beneficial in the past, as has the national sector council's Mining Industry Human Resources Council. Both of these programs are being wound down, or funding has been significantly reduced.

Lastly, the inadequate infrastructure in northern regions affects the competitiveness of the mining sector and also affects the abilities of northerners to effectively participate in employment and economic development opportunities related to mining.

Time permitting, I'll go to page 20 in your program, which shows you some examples of how federal regulations and policy have the potential to drastically affect mineral development in northern Saskatchewan. This relates to Environment Canada's proposed recovery strategy for boreal woodland caribou, which is currently up for public review. This strategy would effectively restrict development in the grey areas shown here, and would eliminate development in Saskatchewan in the blue areas shown: over 30 million hectares and essentially all of the Precambrian Shield area of northern Saskatchewan.

We feel that the model Environment Canada has used is based on incomplete and inaccurate science and on faulty assumptions and professional judgment, particularly with respect to the relationship between the availability of caribou habitat, the high incidence of natural fires in northern Saskatchewan, and the very limited proportion of human disturbance. These types of policies really affect the ability of the mineral industry to move forward.

In conclusion, Saskatchewan is a leading global producer of potash and uranium, although we have lost our number one ranking with respect to uranium. Saskatchewan continues to offer excellent resource potential, with world-class deposits. Mining, directly and indirectly, currently employs over 30,000 people and is poised to employ significantly more in the future as the mining industry invests over $42 billion in the next 20 years.

Saskatchewan mining companies are Canadian. They are world leaders in aboriginal employment and business development. However, key regulatory issues impede growth, without demonstrating an environmental benefit.

With that, I'd like to thank the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources for inviting us to make this presentation today. We'd be very pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Steve Chapman]

The amendments put forward under Bill C-9 did not include a specific amendment for greenhouse gas emissions. Notwithstanding that, I can confirm that the review panel that was struck to conduct an environmental assessment of the Kearl oil sands projects did look at the environmental impacts associated with air quality and particular greenhouse gas emissions.

The Environment

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, received royal assent yesterday, June 11, 2003.

Could the Minister of the Environment tell Canadians if the renewed act will provide participants in environmental assessments with a more transparent and predictable process?

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 11, 2003

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Ian Binnie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 11th day of June, 2003, at 8:25 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Chapter 9; and Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act,Chapter 10.

Committees of the House

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “Sustainable Development and Environmental Assessment: Beyond Bill C-9”.

It might be worthwhile to note that this report is for Parliamentarians, policy-makers, policy advisers and anyone interested in environmental assessment. Its aim is to give a clear sense of direction for environmental assessment through its recommendations.

The report was made possible by the valuable testimony of witnesses on Bill C-9 before the committee, consultations with knowledgeable people in the field of environmental assessment and, in particular, by Stephen Hazell. The technical and practical experience provided by him and numerous witnesses was considerable and provided the substance of the recommendations contained in this document.

This report is triggered by Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Within the rules of procedure, it was possible to make some 76 amendments to Bill C-9 at the committee stage.

In conclusion, something was needed for the next review of the act scheduled to take place around the year 2010. It is our hope that officials in the Privy Council Office, Environment Canada, the Canadian Environmental Agency and interested parliamentarians will examine this report and its recommendations before drafting the next bill.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-9.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, at this stage in the study of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, known as the CEAA.

Both the House and the committee worked very hard and have shown a great deal of goodwill in order to amend this bill to bring it into line with Quebec's longstanding environmental conditions and claims.

Let us recall the major elements of this bill. First, there are two new objectives: to promote cooperation and coordinated action between federal and provincial governments with respect to environmental assessment processes for projects; and to promote communication and cooperation between responsible authorities and aboriginal peoples with respect to environmental assessment. It would also subject the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, to the process and establish a federal environmental assessment coordinator for projects that involve several federal authorities or provinces. It also authorizes the use, as an assessment criterion, of local knowledge, aboriginal knowledge and traditions. The bill broadens the minister's discretionary power to get involved in projects in Quebec. It extends the participant funding program to comprehensive studies.

Allow me to talk about the issues for the Bloc Quebecois. Bill C-9, as it now stands, is not a bad bill. It is a considerable improvement on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, particularly by extending its application to CIDA and certain crown agencies.

Participant funding and the consultation of aboriginals are other very interesting features of this bill.

However, the problem lies with the very principle of the bill. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act interferes in Quebec's fundamental jurisdictions.

When it was introduced in 1992, the legislation was interpreted as an attempt by the federal government to reintroduce some discretionary leeway in its environmental assessment process.

Clause 22 of the bill clearly broadens the federal government's authority to interfere in one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. The minister reserves discretionary power for himself by adding:

Where no power, duty or function referred to in section 5 is to be exercised or performed by a federal authority in relation to a project that is to be carried out in a province and the Minister is of the opinion that the project may cause significant adverse environmental effects in another province, the Minister may refer the project to a mediator or a review panel in accordance with section 29 for an assessment of the environmental effects of the project in that other province.

Clause 8 provides for the creation of the position of federal environmental assessment coordinator. This shows clearly that the federal government wants to insinuate itself into Quebec's process. it is because the federal government intends to act in Quebec's area of jurisdiction that it has to create the position of coordinator. If the federal government stuck to its own area of jurisdiction, coordination would not be required.

Initially, some provincial governments, including Quebec and Alberta, were the leaders. They criticized the Canadian legislation and demanded major changes that would have made possible for provincial processes to be used in place of federal assessments, but there were few federal concessions.

The bill appears to introduce discrimination between the promoters of projects associated with federal authorities and those that are not. For example, a partially federal-funded project would be covered by the law, but as soon as the federal level is not involved, another system clicks in.

Let us turn now to Quebec's opposition. In 1992, under Mr. Bourassa's government, the National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution denouncing the federal government which was acting unilaterally without taking into account Quebec's representations. The motion read:

That the National Assembly stronly disapproves of the federal government bill, ...an Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, ...because it is contrary to the higher interest of Quebec, and the National Assembly opposes its passage by the federal Parliament.

Quebec is also against duplication of the process by the federal government. This federal process can take place in addition to the environmental evaluation from the BAPE. It is a waste of resources which could be used more efficiently for environment.

One has to remember this historical event. It is important to remember what our position was at that time, in Quebec, in an effort to understand what we went through with the current legislation, which is now to be amended.

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.

Let me repeat this 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. 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 subjecting to federal assessment many environmental projects with an environmental impact, which have already gone through the environmental assessment and review process in Quebec. This situation would therefore create a serious duplication problem in Quebec.

The scope of our Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, is expanded to include various issues, and not only specific projects from proponents, something that is not possible in the federal process, which was enacted a few years ago and which we are amending today.

Therefore, the significance of the Quebec process must be recognized. As I said, Quebec did not sign the Accord on Environmental Harmonization because it was afraid at the time that there would be some bills 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.

We do not see how the Government of Quebec could find a way to get application of these elements of the federal environmental assessment process delegated to it, although the process it has had in place in recent years is acknowledged as the most effective in the world. Not only do we say so, others do as well. Why undo what is being done well? If Quebec were not proactive as far as environmental assessment is concerned, I might just about be able to understand the Canadian government's desire to develop a federal process, because of the Quebec government's lack of stringency as far as environmental assessment is concerned. But why do they want to duplicate it when the Quebec process is recognized as working?

This is evidence of an increasingly centralist government in Ottawa, despite its preaching of cooperation and harmonization. People cannot say one thing out of one side of their mouths, and its opposite out of the other. They cannot say that cooperation and collaboration are necessary and then turn up with bills that could not be more centralist.

Political consistency is the one and only thing that will restore public confidence in the political system. Inconsistency and an approach of this type is what leads to Quebeckers and Canadians to lose interest in politics and politicians. To my mind, consistency is vital.

So why not give full rein to a Quebec process that allows a comprehensive study? That is what I cannot understand. Since the Quebec process allows comprehensive study, why, if the federal government wants to achieve good environmental assessment, not let this process be used to its full extent,since it does provide comprehensive study? But no, they want to consolidate a bill.

There is another fundamental problem. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act adopts a process of self-assessment, in that the federal authorities assess their own projects, unlike the situation in Quebec where we have our own Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement to do environmental assessment. Often, under the Canadian legislation, departments do their own assessments.

So they are both judge and defendant. 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.

We have some serious criticisms of several clauses of Bill C-9. First, clause 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.

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.

I am not convinced that our fellow citizens are happy with the federal process, under which only 1% of projects are subject to a comprehensive study. I would be curious to ask the question to Canadians and I would be happy to do a public opinion poll to ask those who used the federal process if they are happy with the fact that only 1% of projects were subject to a comprehensive study, which means that 99% underwent a screening. I would ask them: are you happy with that? Do you believe that the process is transparent? Do you think that the self-assessment philosophy of the federal government is right? I am convinced that the results would be different.

It seems obvious to me that the federal government is trying to force a process on Quebec, which already has an effective process. This is my opinion, but it is also the opinion of others.

I also wish to say that in committee we strived to have the special status given to the Cree people in Quebec and recognized under article 22 of the Baie-James Convention, which provides for a distinct environmental assessment regime and process, recognized under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as it is under the environmental quality legislation in Quebec. This was one of the major demands of the Grand Council of the Crees, namely thate this special status be given and that article 22 of the convention be recognized.

Their proposal on energy sates:

In order to guarantee Quebecers the hydro supply they will need in the near future, we intend to speed up hydro project development by quickly reaching an agreement with federal authorities in order to harmonize, and even delegate to Quebec the environment assessment process.

The Government of Quebec wishes to reduce waiting tperiods, among other things, for hydro projects. Hydro is the main economic generator in Quebec.

The past is an indication of what the future holds in store. Look at what this government has done with the environmental assessment project in the Toulnustouc project on the North Shore. It is important to remember that the interference of the federal government in the hydro-electric 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.

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 often been blamed here in the House for not understanding anything. The Government of Quebec was often blamed 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 in Quebec does not agree on this issue either.

I am truly convinced that when the newly elected government in the National Assembly sees this bill and studies and evaluates these major amendments, it will be consistent with Robert Bourassa's position in 1992 and support the drive to patriate these powers 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 demands and to the best interests of Quebec, as all of the governments in Quebec have done for decades.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part today, at third reading stage, in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

It might be good to remind the House that Bill C-9 amends the existing Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This basic legislation came into effect in January 1995 and is the process through which the federal government decides whether or not to approve projects that could have an environmental impact. It is important to note that we are therefore talking mainly about the federal government's power in the environmental area.

But we will see that, in this area as in many others, the federal government is unable to curb its insatiable desire for power to its own jurisdictions and this is the main reason the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill.

In relation to a physical work, a project corresponds to any proposed construction, operation, modification, decommissioning or abandonment in relation to that physical work. These are all the concepts found in the act in relation to a project. Regulations will clarify the type of projects that are covered or not by an environmental assessment. Paragraph 5 of the basic legislation states that some projects are not subject to an environmental assessment and other exclusions, beside national and other emergencies, restrict the scope of the act. This is the context in which we have to work today.

Exclusions are logical and they are subject to other rules. However, some exclusions are much more ambiguous and cover a number of areas: agriculture, electric and nuclear energy, pipelines, forests, transport, and so on. A good number of these are areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to a comment about this made by the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, the Bloc Quebecois environment critic. He has carefully reviewed this bill as well as other issues related to the environment. The member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, who is a leader when it comes to environmental matters, mentioned that there was a fundamental problem, beyond the issue of jurisdiction, in that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act takes a self-assessment approach: federal authorities are the ones who assess their own projects.

So, while there are sectors that were excluded, as we mentioned earlier, there are also sectors where departments carry out their own assessments of projects they want to promote. Once again, as the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie said, unlike in Quebec, where there is the BAPE, under Canadian legislation, departments are often responsible for conducting their own assessments. This means they are both judge and defendant. It is as though we were telling industrial developers or the oil industry to do their own environmental assessments. What would that lead to? It would lead to biased results. So, what we need is a truly independent process, like that of Quebec's BAPE.

The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec has been in existence for several years now. Quebec set up an assessment process that dates back to 1972, when the first environmental assessment legislation was passed in Quebec. Back then, it truly was one of the best pieces of legislation of its type. Of course, environmental issues have evolved over the years, but the fact that the review is there, that this legislation was passed, has allowed for the development of a truly independent environmental assessment process that has, over the long haul, turned out to be a very good decision.

Under the process, there are clear standards by which preliminary studies are carried out on legislation in Quebec. If the environmental impact of a project meets the standards, then a certificate of authorization is issued. This gives developers a very high degree of certainty.

When the BAPE gives its authorization for a project, a certificate is issued, which consists of a guarantee for those involved in the project that, in the end, projects will be accepted, and can be carried out. Therefore, the BAPE assessment catches anything that the standards may have missed. The public is guaranteed access to this type of hearing.

There are other aspects of Bill C-9 that have caught our attention.

One of the features of this act is that only federal authorities are subject to environmental assessment. Whenever such an entity is the promoter of whole projects or parts of projects, it must conduct an environmental assessment. Help for a project may take the form of funding, a loan guarantee, or financial assistance.

However, financial assistance in the form of tax relief is not addressed, and neither are projects carried out outside Canada. In that respect, the organization Development and Peace recommended that Export Development Canada projects be assessed, because we cannot do abroad what we would not dare do at home.

This opens a very important chapter about all that lies ahead in international negotiations, where we have moved from agreements like NAFTA, to liberalize trade, to agreements that include social and environmental provisions. It is important that any legislation we pass now reflects this thrust, so that eventually we may have environmental assessments that allow us to determine the true value of projects.

First, Bill C-9 sets out new objectives: to promote cooperation and coordinated action between federal and provincial governments with respect to environmental assessment processes for projects, to promote communication and cooperation between responsible authorities and aboriginal peoples with respect to environmental assessment.

It creates the position of environmental assessment coordinator. There is the rub. Let us consider paragraph 46(1), which states, “Where no power, duty or function referred to in section 5 is to be exercised or performed by a federal authority in relation to a project that is to be carried out in a province and the minister is of the opinion that the project may cause significant adverse environmental effects in another province, the minister may refer the project to a mediator or a review panel in accordance with section 29 for an assessment of the environmental effects of the project in that other province”.

This is the clause that obliges the Bloc Quebecois to oppose this bill. We cannot be opposed to proper environmental assessments. In this connection, Quebec has proven its desire to pass legislation that is effective and gives satisfactory results. The bill we have before us at the present time, however, allows the federal government to intervene in areas that are not under the general application set out in clause 5 but affect all other matters which, in the judgment of the minister, may be considered pertinent if the act is to be implemented in a province.

Thus there could be a duplicate assessment of a project to be carried out in Quebec, because it would have an environmental impact on Nova Scotia, Ontario or some other province. Certainly, we all agree that a good environmental process is necessary, but sustainable economic development assumes the presence of environmental rules that do not act as hindrances to development but instead make possible projects that fit in with sustainable development. We are entitled to doubt that this federal approach will be a satisfactory one.

To us, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is an encroachment on Quebec's basic areas of jurisdiction. To begin with, right from the time it was introduced, it has been interpreted as a federal attempt to reintroduce discretionary leeway into its environmental assessment process. This is clearly demonstrated by the clause I was just reading.

In clause 8, the creation of a federal environmental assessment coordinator clearly demonstrates the federal desire to meddle in the Quebec process. It wants to created a coordinating position because of its intention to interfere in an area of Quebec jurisdiction. Otherwise it would not need such a position. If it stuck to its own area of jurisdiction, the federal level would not have any need of this position, one which by its very definition assumes the coordination of projects that affect several provinces or which, thanks to clause 22, can intervene in an area of jurisdiction that is already covered by Quebec, that is by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

We know that the provincial governments—Quebec and Alberta were the leaders in the environmental area—have spoken out against the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and called for major changes, which would have made it possible for the provincial processes to replace federal assessments.

The federal government rejected those concessions at the time. The bill also appears to introduce discrimination between promoters of social projects and the federal authorities, and other authorities. For example, a project partly financed by the federal government will be subject to the Canadian environmental assessment act. But if the federal government is not involved, a second system comes into play. So there is a double standard. We should have examined this more closely in order to find more acceptable solutions.

In 1992--and this is already 11 years ago--, when Robert Bourassa was Premier of Quebec, the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion condemning the approach tkaen by the federal government, which was acting unilaterally without taking into account Quebec's representations.

This motion read as follows:

That the National Assembly strongly disapproves of the federal government bill, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, because it is contrary to the higher interests of Quebec, and that the National Assembly opposes its passage by the federal Parliament.

From the outset, a motion was unanimously passed and approved by this federalist Liberal government in Quebec that said, “The federal government has no business in this.” That is justifiable. It is a position that is shared by all political parties in Quebec.

Quebec wants all projects within its territory, whether the federal government is participating in them or not, to undergo its own environmental assessment process with the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. The Quebec process allows, in our opinion, more transparency in terms of public participation. We have attended BAPE hearings in the past. The debates are often very heated, but they allow people to express their opinions and their points of view quite clearly. In any case, this tribunal has always had a reputation for doing a good job.

Quebec has an independent assessment process that contrasts with the federal government's philosophy of self-assessment. Under Quebec's system, departments are not asked to assess their own projects. Obviously, this ensures greater transparency. This also means it is not necessary to ensure that the process complies with a sufficiently rational logic.

Quebec's process also excludes fewer projects early on and therefore provides greater protection for the environment. It contains no exclusions or exceptions, as does the federal legislation. It is also less complex than what the federal government is proposing. It is more homogenous and therefore more predictable, since it is comes under one single entity instead of different government departments.

The Quebec process has a clear time frame, unlike the federal government's legislation, which never gives very specific deadlines.

There are, therefore, two different environmental assessment models. In fact, the federal government is very late in addressing this; it is trying to play catch-up. It has developed a particular model which often creates conflicts of interest and which is, ultimately and very surprisingly, based on the Quebec system; it is going to intervene when the Quebec system is already in place. So, this can lead to significant duplication. In that case, it is not necessarily just the environmentalists who will react, but also the project developers. In fact, the latter, in good faith, submit a project for approval, undergo the BAPE assessment process and, suddenly, due to the federal legislation, have to submit their project to a second review. Then they have to see if it is approved or not.

It is important to remember that the purpose of assessing environmental projects is not to block the projects indefinitely, but to ensure that development projects respect the principles of sustainable development, as Quebec has done for many years now.

Of course, Quebec also opposes the duplication of procedures the federal government has introduced. This is a waste of resources that could be used more effectively for the benefit of the environment.

For all these reasons, we felt that it was important to try to get this bill revised and corrected. We are now at the third reading stage and we are trying to have the bill referred once again to the committee or to have the government itself reconsider the bill so that, in its final version, the bill will respect the jurisdiction of provinces, particularly that of Quebec, in environmental matters. Occasionally, the federal government has done so for other projects in order to respect provincial jurisdiction, and it also ensured that what worked in other cases could be incorporated in the legislation, in order to have a better act.

We see nothing of the kind in this bill and this is the why the Bloc Quebecois is opposing it. As we know, we have to find ways to apply the same rationale to development projects and their environmental assessment to have sustainable development.

In that sense, in the case of hydro projects, we can say that the past in an indication of what the future holds in store, as the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie said. He also said:

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.

Therefore we are not talking about theoretical objections, objections that did not turn out to be well founded. In the case of this bill, we are talking about real situations. It would have been possible to take advanatage of the amendments being made to the act to correct the situation and avoid, in future, this kind of conflict of interest, which has significant economic effects on revenues and also on job creation.

People on the North Shore undoubtedly want the project to go ahead as soon as possible. BAPE hearings were held and, consequently, it did not necessarily seem relevant to add a second environmental study.

The hon. member said later:

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.

Why not, instead, have legislation that would provide that, if a province had an adequate mechanism, that is what would apply, but duplication would be avoided at all costs?

The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie concluded by saying that he was:

—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.

In conclusion, I think the best lesson to be drawn from today's debate is that, as the member from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said this morning, the environment is not just about theoretical issues. It has an impact on people's daily lives and that should be one measure of whether projects are compatible with sustainable development. But we must never use environmental legislation to obstruct development projects; all voices must be heard.

At present, the federal government, by allowing us to vote on Bill C-9, is not working for the cause of the environment. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. As I indicated, if there were a project that was initiated from CP or any of the other rail entities, that project would be dealt with within the confines of the Canada Transportation Act.

It would seem to me that the spirit of Bill C-9 with respect to the information that would be provided to those who are within the immediate right of way, those who are implicated directly or indirectly, whether it be through noise or with respect to an unseemly interruption of what could be characterized as reasonable life and lifestyle, is that they would have all the information available to them. I do not know whether the Canada Transportation Act provides for that but it would seem to me the same spirit with respect to public information and access should be provided.

I would like to point out that it is the application though, through the Canadian Transportation Agency, that would trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the same provisions would provide with respect to the public's right to have input. The ultimate decision would be made through the Canada Transportation Act and agency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently as various members raised the implications of Bill C-9. I particularly want to thank the member for Davenport for his wise adjudication of the whole process of Bill C-9. In addition to the points that were made last week, there are some points that I am pleased to address.

Those points primarily fall into three categories: the bill as it relates to crown corporations; the bill as it relates to the immensely implicating concerns with respect to nuclear storage, and the Bruce nuclear dry storage issue was mentioned; and the issues with respect to federal-provincial harmonization. I would like to address those three issues this morning as well as additional points that have been made during the course of debate.

With respect to crown corporations, the bill provides that after three years crown corporations would come under the provisions of Bill C-9, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Some members have asked why.

There are crown corporations that have and immense impact on particular parts of our constituencies. For example, the Farm Credit Corporation receives literally thousands of applications for farm credit. If the strictest letter of Bill C-9 were addressed to the Farm Credit Corporation, it would result in the applications for credit being held back. All members would agree that is not the intent of Bill C-9. The Farm Credit Corporation addresses Bill C-9 in a special way in its intent, but in a very different way in terms of implementation.

It is important to look at different corporations such as the Export Development Corporation, which is exempt from the requirements, because it has a separate process for environmental review of projects that it funds. Those processes have been separately established through the Export Development Act. To bring congruency to that act, which is not companion legislation at all because it is its own separate legislation, would require some time.

Another example of that is the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board which is also exempt because it is not a federal authority as it has a unique federal-provincial nature.

My colleague from Davenport raised the matter of CP Rail. I have been able to extract the information with respect to those points. CP Rail is not a crown corporation, but any permit or licence that it needs to construct a project would trigger the act through the Canadian Transportation Agency. This is another conduit for that particular crown corporations to work through. It will take a little time to bring these two different jurisdictions into congruency. For those who are interested in the rail sector, VIA Rail is a crown corporation and the new provisions of Bill C-9 would also apply to it.

With respect to the Bruce used fuel dry storage facility, I would not want it to be perceived as being simply a quick and dirty, and nasty process in regard to the dismissal of the concerns that were raised with respect to nuclear storage because that was not the case. The matter that was being adjudicated upon was for the onsite storage of existing nuclear fuel. It was not to bring in nuclear fuel from other operations.

In addition, the project was required to continue its operations. That was something that had to be considered at the time. The project underwent a thorough review as a comprehensive study from 1997 to 1999 and the comprehensive study included a 60 day public comment period. It was concluded that the project would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects. This conclusion, as has been pointed out, was upheld by both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, which concluded also that the federal authority could not delegate away its responsibility and accountability with respect to that issue.

I would suggest that the cycle has come full circle in that Bill C-9 closes the accountability gap, if it ever existed in the first place. We also know that there has been separate legislation under the Nuclear Safety Act which, at this particular time through the Nuclear Safety Commission, is engaged in looking at this whole question of onsite nuclear storage.

There has been considerable concern and interest raised with respect to federal-provincial relations. As I have indicated before, when I was speaking on this issue, the matter of jurisdictional cooperation is dealt with up front with respect to Bill C-9 because it is absolutely clear that there must be a high level of provincial-federal cooperation in order to address and get around the kind of duplication and obfuscation that occurs when we have two important desires which should come together, and that is to protect the environment in a sustainable manner.

In 1998, all provinces and territories, with the exception of Quebec, signed the Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization. It is hoped that the kinds of issue that have been addressed within the context and spirit of that particular companion document will find us perhaps discovering a new day in provincial-federal relations where the nature of duplication and conflict can be resolved. I would beg that the new government in the province of Quebec would review Bill C-9 against the opportunity to develop new mechanisms so that it too would sign the harmonization accord.

The legislation mentions the creation of a new position: federal-environment assessment coordinator. The coordinator would have powers to set timelines and would be accountable for ensuring that federal authorities fulfill their obligations under the act in a timely manner, since justice delayed is justice denied in terms of holding back unnecessarily the information that is provided through the public registry, and the scoping and recommendations that are entrenched in Bill C-9.

Aboriginal peoples have a unique role to play in environmental assessments and Bill C-9 would ensure that special provisions would apply with respect to the value and use of traditional knowledge that is very much part of aboriginal background. The legislation would enable band councils to undertake assessments on reserve lands.

Martha Kostuch, from The Friends of the Oldman River, appeared before the standing committee and welcomed new requirements that established an Internet based registry of project information. However, she cautioned that electronic information alone is not sufficient because there are still people who require paper information. Those provisions have been included. Under circumstances that are specific to a proponent's application for environment assessment, all information will be provided in a manner that is best utilized by the public.

There are other positive changes. As hon. members know, the environment is a dynamic area of public policy. In terms of its dynamics it is extremely sensitive to advances in science and technology. It is in that manner of update of information, in particular as it is available to special interest groups which have a huge opportunity and a wisdom and an information base to be part of the environmental process, that they will have even additional opportunities to do so.

As members of Parliament we must be certain that the positive evolution of environmental assessment set in motion by the minister's review of the Act and Parliament's consideration of Bill C-9 will continue. The answer to the question of whether the act will fulfil its obligations probably lies in the fact that not only is there a companion piece with respect to beyond Bill C-9 but that the quality assurance program requires that there is an ongoing response and monitoring under the quality assurance program that will keep the agency vigilant. It will make recommendations as policy issues arise that require change. It is not just at the end of the seven years that the review will to take place, it will be an ongoing review.

New requirements that make follow-up programs mandatory for larger and more complex projects are a second way that Bill C-9 will promote continuous improvement. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act follow-up programs examine whether the predictions made by an environmental assessment are accurate and whether the mitigation measures intended to prevent environmental harm are actually working. By making these programs mandatory for projects assessed by a comprehensive study, mediation or a review panel, we are guaranteed a constant flow of follow-up information.

In support of these legislative changes the minister has committed the agency to act as a central electronic repository of follow-up information allowing others to use the results of past assessments to improve their ability to predict effects and design mitigation measures.

I am confident that Bill C-9 will significantly strengthen the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I am also certain that the positive momentum created by the bill will continue. As as a matter of fact, the provisions beyond Bill C-9 start to relate environmental assessment to sustainable development in order that the process facilitates a meaningful change, not only in attitudes toward sustainable development and the stewardship of our environment but invite new positive ways that it can be done as well.

We look forward to a continuation of that spirit as we gain experience from Bill C-9. In this way we will have an environmental assessment process that retains the confidence of Canadians, a process that supports on a project by project basis our environmental priorities, including action on climate, endangered species, clean water and clean air. In other words, we will take those steps that will provide for a legacy for future generations that is in keeping with the sense of responsibility that we feel at this present time.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I will not speak immediately on the social union, but I recognize its relevance. I have some ideas along those lines, but it she will permit, I will not talk about that right away.

When I was talking about an ombudsman, I was referring to Bill C-26, with which the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is very familiar. He did me the honour of coming to Hochelaga—Maisonneuve during the Easter break to meet the people who live on Moreau, Préfontaine and Wurtele streets. Part of that neighbourhood is in the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, as well.

Bill C-26 will make it possible for the Canadian Transportation Agency to accept complaints from citizens who live in extremely worrisome situations with respect to noise that interferes with their quality of life.

The Canadian Transportation Agency will create a mediation process. This may not be enough. We would have liked to see something stronger, something more coercive. But since there was nothing before, I do not need to tell the House that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and myself, along with our constituents, were pleased to get this news, although that will not prevent us from suggesting amendments to Bill C-26, in order to go farther.

The member for Terrebonne—Blainville is correct in reminding us that Bill C-9 would create the position of Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator. This worries us, just as the amendment in clause 22 worries us, because it would give somewhat discretionary power to the Minister of the Environment.

I would like to read clause 22 of the bill to you, so there is no misunderstanding. No one will be able to accuse me of not quoting my sources properly.

Where no power, duty or function referred to in section 5 is to be exercised or performed by a federal authority in relation to a project that is to be carried out in a province... the Minister may refer the project to a mediator or a review panel in accordance with section 29—

—which will become section 46—

—for an assessment of the environmental effects of the project—

Therefore, in this clause, the federal government says that even in a province such as Quebec, for example, where there has been environmental assessment legislation for years, it could—exercising its own discretion—choose to duplicate that which already exists. That is the reason successive governments in the National Assembly—I mentioned Robert Bourassa's government earlier—have been opposed to this legislation.

As to the very sophisticated question of my very dear colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville on the social union, I sensed the influence of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who presented a motion on this very subject. Members are aware that the former Quebec premier, Lucien Bouchard, the founding president of our great political party, rejected the social union proposal because it set a very wide framework in which nothing would prevent the federal government from intruding into economic development, relations with natives and, of course, health, and seizing control of all there areas. That is precisely what is going on.

Again, I thank the hon. member for her question. The throne speech, coupled with the social union issue, opens the door to the government federal's poking its nose into just about everything.

I will give just one example, family law. Do members know that my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier has to fight tooth and nail in committee because, on the issue of divorce, they want to intrude in family law and gut the jurisdiction of the Quebec courts? I could go on and on giving examples that show that the social union agreement has set all the conditions for the federal government to intefere in all areas of jurisdiction.

In the case of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, where medical procedures happen in private clinics or health institutions, the federal government has found a way to intrude. How? Through the Criminal Code.

Once again, my colleague was quite right to make the link. That is why the social union agreement is totally unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières will fight to the end, and let me tell you that we will not just roll over.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank that the chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I will have to check on all that. I will certainly be nice to see that Canadian Pacific will have to comply with the provisions of Bill C-26. This bill would give more power to the Transportation Agency to offer a mediation service in the case of complaints from citizens. If, on top of that, Bill C-9 subjects Canadian Pacific to the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and to the related review mechanism, it is excellent news. This, however, does not make the bill any more acceptable.

I thank the office of the Bloc Quebecois House leader for giving me a very good advance notice that I would be speaking to this bill. I would like to remind the House that for Quebec, environmental assessment is a very important matter. Why? It is of course because Quebec adopted its own legislation back in the early 1990s. I will come back to thislater.

It is perfectly legitimate for the Bloc Quebecois and the various successive governments of Quebec to ensure that Bill C-9 and the previous legislation do not tread upon Quebec's jurisdiction, as so often happens with this government, unfortunately.

Canada has had its Environmental Assessment Act since 1995, while Quebec has had one since 1992. Of course, this act stipulates that when various kinds of projects are not covered by an exception, it is possible to carry out studies either screening reports or comprehensive studies regarding the impact of any work and construction, on the environment. That is what an environmental assessment law does.

What was unusual until just recently was that, before the parliamentary committee began examining the bill, the mechanisms for impact, evaluation and analysis under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act only came into play if the federal government itself were involved. Therefore, members can see that there was a problem. It was the federal government that ordered the inquiry and also received the results of the inquiry. Thus, the federal government was both judge and defendant.

If there is one thing we can be proud of as parliamentarians, it is our societies' continuing awareness of environmental assessment. We are not ready to accept development at any price.

Let us take the example of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. As members know, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is an old working-class neighbourhood, which was first industrialized in the late 19th century, and was known for its labour-intensive industries. That was an era when our fellow citizens wanted to live where they worked. They worked and lived in their neighbourhood. They were not worried by the modern issues of urban planning. Until 20 or 30 years ago, there was mixed use, with heavy industry and residential neighbourhoods together.

Today, of course, that would not be acceptable. No one would want to live next door to a business that employs 300 or 400 people and pollutes heavily.

Then there was this awareness that not only land-use has to be planned carefully, but also that one cannot have economic development regardless of the cost. People want to have guarantees when new businesses are created or old ones expanded. If they are subsidized, and even when they are not, people are not ready to put up with just any kind of behaviour from corporations even if they create jobs.

On the contrary, there is a new environmental awareness that makes it possible to introduce a piece of legislation such as the one before us today.

However, there is a real problem as far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned. We want environmental assessment mechanisms. We believe this is the responsibility of the government. We believe reports must be as binding as possible and that there must be corrective action. We are just as committed to the polluter pay principle as we were a few years back. We know what a vigilant environmental conscience the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie has been for the Bloc Quebecois, and I can tell you that the values he has been promoting are shared broadly by the Bloc Quebecois' members.

As the Bloc Quebecois leader knows, Bill C-9 is aimed at amending section 2 of the Act, and it will allow—at least this is what it sets out to do—better cooperation between the provincial governments and the federal government when an environmental assessment is needed.

As the member for Davenport said, the bill provides—and this is good news—that Crown corporations will be subject to the investigation mechanisms linked to an environmental assessment. Even the Canadian International Development Agency, will be subject to the process.

Where things start to fall apart—and the Bloc Quebecois will show extreme vigilance here—is when the government proposes creating a federal environmental assessment coordinator for projects involving several federal authorities. Where things start to fall apart is when there is increasingly less respect for the demands made by every Quebec government, including the Robert Bourassa government which, if I may say, did not have much backbone or fire. Each Quebec government has demanded that Quebec's environmental assessment legislation be respected.

I am not saying that this legislation does not need to be reviewed and updated. Nonetheless, one of the demands of each successive government in the national assembly has been for Quebec's environmental assessment legislation to be respected.

I would remind the hon. members—and those who are familiar with Quebec know this—that when environmental assessment legislation is mentioned, one thing and one thing alone comes to mind and that is the BAPE. People know the BAPE and they know its strength.

For example, in east Montreal for many years now there has been talk of modernizing Notre-Dame street. I do not know if any hon. members have driven on Notre-Dame. This street is an extremely important thoroughfare for Montreal and all of Quebec, because if it is important to Montreal, it is important elsewhere. One of the factors influencing where businesses and individuals decide to settle, is, of course, traffic flow.

Notre-Dame is the old King's Highway that General de Gaulle took when he came to Montreal. General Charles-Émile de Gaulle, clearly, is a very positive reference in Quebec history. So, Notre-Dame street must be modernized.

It is in our interest to have a fast thoroughfare because people end up sitting in traffic on Notre-Dame. What does it mean when traffic on the major thoroughfares does not flow well? It means that people use smaller neighbourhood streets, such as Saint-Clément, Théodore, William-David and Viau. But people cut through our residential neighbourhoods, rather than taking a direct route from east to west.

Thus, concerning the previous Quebec government—it is too early to express an opinion on the current government's intentions—we knew that it was very important to modernize Notre-Dame Street. Public consultations were held under the auspices of the BAPE. Our fellow citizens expressed their views on the type of projects that they wanted. They were against a highway and in favour of a urban boulevard. They wanted certain parameters to be met to ensure that the residential component of the neighbourhood of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and, more generally, of the east end of Montreal, would be protected.

All this to say that, in Quebec, the environmental assessment act is working extremely well, that we know it, and that it is the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement that leads consultations.

Let me talk about the major characteristics of the Quebec environmental assessment act. The Bloc Quebecois cannot accept certain things on its territory. I am not talking about the CP, for example. We agree that it is under federal jurisdiction. When a railway runs through several provinces, we are dealing with interprovincial, not intraprovincial, trade. We understand that it is the role of the federal government to proceed with an environmental impact analysis. But on its own territory, domestically, when there are no interprovincinal issues, Robert Bourassa, René Lévesque, Daniel Johnson, Jacques Parizeau, all the premiers, and of course Lucien Bouchard as well as Mr. Landry, said--and I am convinced that this will be the Charest government's position—that all projects on the Quebec government's territory must be subject to one single environmental assessment, that is the one resulting from the act passed by the national assembly a few years ago.

Why is this act better? Why does this act deserve to be more complied with? First, because it is more transparent. From the beginning to the end, it associates the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement with our fellow citizens, who can be heard and who can file submissions. A tabled report is made public. A whole influence process is possible with the BAPE.

Second, it is independent. It is not a matter of self-assessment. The Government of Quebec is not acting as judge and jury. I indicated earlier how surprised I was, a few years ago, when I got interested in this legislation, to see that there is no investigation unless the federal government requests one. The federal government not only commissions the investigation; it also receives the findings. There is no doubt that, in terms of practices and approaches, the process is such that the federal government is both judge and jury.

In Quebec, the legislation passed by the National Assembly is more inclusive. It does not exclude outright and therefore provides more adequate protection, because of its broader scope. This is the most appropriate term to describe it. The federal legislation has a narrower scope, as it applies only to work contracted by the federal government.

The legislation in Quebec is more complex, which makes it more uniform and predictable. This is not insignificant. The problem with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is that there is no single centre of authority. All federal departments are affected. There is no timetable. This means that whenever an investigation is ordered, we cannot tell when it will end; we do not know under whose authority it is conducted; and we do not know who is in charge of conducting it. Under the legislation passed by the National Assembly, all this is much clearer.

As hon. members can see, the legislation in Quebec is better in many regards. Our colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie has put forward an amendment. I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois will unfortunately have to oppose this bill, because it interferes in an area in which Quebec has already legislated and where its legislation should take precedence.

Understandably, the impact is clearer for Quebec because the law clearly names the authority centres. There is thus a potential for duplication of power that we cannot accept. The bill gives the federal minister discretionary powers. These were not in the old act, but clause 22 of the bill allows the federal government and the Minister of the Environment to amend section 46, thus giving them discretionary powers. This is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois which is why we are again going to defend the interests of Quebec and ensure that Quebec retains its full power.

Once again, there is nothing partisan about this. It is hard for us to be partisan. We always try to rise above partisan considerations and focus on higher interests. The government of Robert Bourassa had made representations to the former minister of the environment, so obviously it is not just a sovereignty issue.

Moreover, this leads me to speak to the motion passed by the national assembly. I believe I even have it with me, and I would be remiss if I did not share it with members. Was Robert Bourassa the member for Saint-Laurent at that time?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this brief intervention I will put forward some of the major improvements that were made to Bill C-9 on environmental assessment. I will also outline some of the major shortcomings. If time permits I will make brief comments on interventions made by my colleagues during the debate so far.

The improvements are the following. It would be desirable to bring to the attention of the House that the bill, as amended in committee, would now remove the blanket exemptions for crown corporations. Crown corporations would now have three years within which to develop their own regulations on environmental impact assessment or to come automatically under the act. Considering there are 43 crown corporations, whose projects would, as of now, be subject to environmental assessment, this is a significant step.

The next area is public participation. Here the amendments made by the committee will provide for greater public participation in the environmental assessment process. For example, along with a newly established government wide Internet site of project information, it would include a notice at the start of each assessment, and the committee has ensured the retention of the current system of project files that provide convenient public assess to all documents associated with environmental assessment. The committee also made changes to ensure public consultations with respect to the scope of a project when it is on the comprehensive study list.

Once the bill is proclaimed no action can be taken by a responsible authority until 15 days after the notice of the beginning of an environmental assessment has been posted on the Internet. The decisions on whether to require a follow up program for a proposed project would have to be posted and decisions on the scope of the project would have to be included from now on.

The last area has to do with the seven year review. The committee passed an amendment that would ensure a comprehensive review of the act by a House or Senate committee within seven years of royal assent. A review by the committee should ensure a thorough overhaul of the act and would avoid the narrow scope that was somehow put to the committee under the Bill C-9 review.

The committee has also written a report to be tabled soon which offers recommendations beyond the scope of Bill C-9 for the consideration of those who would carry out the seven year review when the time comes.

I will now say a a few words on Red Hill Creek. The committee has, hopefully, closed a potential loophole created by the federal court decision in the Red Hill Creek expressway case that would have been used in the future by project proponents to avoid the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act.

To most committee members, the Red Hill case demonstrated an area in which the current act has failed. It was important therefore to use the Red Hill Creek example to make changes to Bill C-9 so as to avoid similar occurrences in future.

By way of background, Environment Canada determined that the construction of the Red Hill Creek expressway would result in the loss of migratory bird habitat through the removal of some 40,000 trees and that the significance of the impact of this loss of migratory birds was unknown.

In addition, the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and the Environment have received many letters expressing concern about the expressway project.

Based on the potential for significant adverse environmental effects and public concerns, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in accordance with section 25 of the act, asked the Minister of the Environment in May 1999 to refer the project to a review panel immediately.

However, without awaiting the outcome of the screening, the Minister of the Environment agreed. Shortly thereafter the original municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth applied to the federal court for a judicial review of a number of issues, most important, the federal government decision that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as well as the Fisheries Act, applied to the project.

The federal court decided that the act did not apply to that project because the project was “grandfathered under section 74 of the act”, and second, because it would be a retroactive application of the act to a project in respect of which “irrevocable decisions” were made by the City of Hamilton prior to the enactment of the act.

One might ask how a major project involving the removal of 40,000 trees and causing the destruction of migratory bird habitat could not be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Instead of appealing the federal court's decision to the Supreme Court, the federal government decided to make amendments to Bill C-9 so that a situation like Red Hill Creek could never happen again. It is the sincere hope of our committee that the amendment to section 2 of the act would have that effect.

Briefly I will say a few words about the major shortcomings of Bill C-9 for future reference of course. There is the issue of panel review which is often considered the core strength of the act, yet, out of 30,000 screenings, only one has been referred to a panel on the basis that significant adverse environmental effects were identified.

The testimony of Mr. Normand de la Chevrotière highlighting the problems at the Bruce nuclear facility still rings in my ears, namely that the world's largest nuclear waste storage facility was approved without a panel review. That was a very stunning statement which really surprised us. Because it was outside of the scope of the bill, the committee was unable, through amendments, to address the lack of panel reviews which the minister has referred to as the core strength of the act and quite rightly so.

The other shortcoming has to do with self-assessment. Because of the narrow scope of the bill, the committee was unable to address the issue of self-assessment by the federal government of its own project. Of the 5,500 or more federal environmental assessments per year, the vast majority are being done by departments responsible for the project and not by the agency responsible for the act.

Witnesses told us that an effective regime could not exist where federal departments conducted assessments of their own projects. We tended to agree with them. Because of the narrow scope of Bill C-9, the committee was unable to deal with the issue.

The third shortcoming is the enforcement. There is no provision in the legislation requiring either enforcement or compliance. Even though there were a number of proposed amendments to the issue, the motions introduced at report stage would remove any power to the agency to make enforceable decisions and impose penalties for non-compliance with the act.

The fact that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development criticized federal departments for failing to implement the environmental assessment of policies and programs, as required by a 1990 and a follow-up in 1999 cabinet directive, highlights the necessity of introducing a compliance mechanism into the act.

The next issue has to do with national parks. The member for Fundy—Royal proposed, through an amendment in committee, that if there were a possibility a project might cause a significant adverse environmental effect on a park, a park reserve or on wildlife that frequent such areas, it should be reviewed by a panel review. The amendment was not carried.

The final issue is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans trigger, as it is referred to. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not trigger an environmental assessment of a project until after it has: first, received complete information on possible measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on fish habitat; and second, it has concluded that prevention and mitigation will not work.

The witnesses before the committee pointed out that the departmental practice has been inefficient, as it makes no sense to assess mitigation options internally in order to determine that mitigation will not work, and then undertake an environmental assessment process to review and study those same mitigation options. The bill does not address this triggering program under the Fisheries Act.

In connection with the debate so far, I read with keen interest the intervention made by my colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, in which he expounded the view that Quebec wanted all projects in its territory to be subjected to its own environmental assessment process. This statement and this kind of policy as proposed flies in the face of our Constitution.

The Constitution sets out very clearly that there is federal jurisdiction across the country in every province when it comes to matters that impinge upon water particularly, namely the Fisheries Act, the Navigation Act and other acts, and therefore Quebec cannot be exempt from the application of federal laws under the Constitution of Canada as if it were an island by itself.

Therefore the argument put forward by the member claiming an exclusive provincial jurisdiction does not hold water.

I also found it quite intriguing to hear the intervention by my distinguished colleague from Windsor—St. Clair. I read his remarks very carefully. I agree with many of his points, particularly with regard to the three criteria that the NDP has applied to test the legislation. They are printed in Hansard on page 5655.

While one has to agree with the second criteria to some extent, I would argue to the contrary, namely that these amendments have not weakened but have strengthened the legislation for the reasons I just gave a few moments ago: by introducing the element of the seven year review and by bringing the crown corporation under the act and so forth.

It seems to me that if I were to apply the three criteria, I would say that two out of three would be positive. I am referring now to the third criterion which refers to the necessity of strengthening the ability for people, community members, NGOs and sectoral interests to deal with the process, namely the general concept of transparency.

I would say that the amendments related to the registry and the time limitations given, that actually the act has been strengthened and has been given transparency.

We must keep in mind that in committee it was possible, by way of very close cooperation, to make some 70 more amendments.

Moving on to the member for Fundy—Royal's intervention, he makes a very important point about the necessity for a panel review of projects of a certain magnitude. He also refers to the testimony given by Monsieur de la Chevrotière in connection with the Bruce Peninsula nuclear waste products issue. I agree with the member for Fundy—Royal that this kind of review should have taken place and that the act therefore requires an amendment to permit such a review to be carried out in future. It would improve the accountability of the government and it would improve the confidence on the part of the public in the environmental impact assessment, and it would be desirable for those reasons alone.

The question that the member for Fundy—Royal raised at the end of his intervention is also quite important because he asks whether the federal environmental assessment is making a significant contribution to sustainable development and a healthy environment. I suppose that is the key question that we need to address. The bill is a measure of limited scope and impact, as indicated earlier. Definitely what is needed here is to have a piece of legislation that will improve and strengthen the sustainable development goals of the Government of Canada, because it is through the properly conducted, efficient, open and successful environmental impact assessment process that we can reinforce the implementation of sustainable development in this country.

Of course the case that comes to mind again is the construction of that expressway in Hamilton, which was approved because of a loophole in the act. Thank God that has been closed. In the meantime, though, 40,000 trees have been cut and considerable damage has been done to the survival of migratory birds.

In conclusion, might I say that it was for all of us a very worthwhile experience to have this bill sent to committee. We have done as much as could be done, politically speaking, to improve it.

May I take this opportunity to recognize the fine work that was carried out as vice-chair of the committee by the member for York North, whose dedication and commitment made it possible to give the bill a considerable boost. She is no longer the vice-chair of our committee and we regret it very much. Had it not been for her work, we would not be able today to list the positive features of this bill and I am glad to do that in recognition of a colleague who has done so well in the promotion of sustainable development.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the lobby just put before us by the hon. member for Bill C-10A to be debated next week.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will commence with Bill C-34, the long-awaited bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

I have informed the House leaders of the other parties of my intention to propose, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), that this bill be referred to committee before second reading. If this debate is completed by the end of the day, we will return to third reading of Bill C-9, which deals with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; then we will go to Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, but I would be surprised if we got that far tomorrow.

On Monday and Wednesday, we will return to the two bills that I just mentioned and we will add to that Bill C-35, regarding military judges, which I think was introduced this morning. Then we will complete, I hope, Bill C-33, dealing with the transfer of offenders.

On Tuesday, and again I am responding to the request made by my colleagues opposite, we will continue consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-10, respecting the Criminal Code.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today regarding Bill C-9, which seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I spoke previously on this bill, at second reading a few days ago, and I said then that with this bill, the federal government was duplicating what we had already done very well, what we had created in Quebec. In addition to having our own environmental assessment act, we wanted to confirm everything and reassure the public by creating the BAPE, the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which makes it possible to assess large projects at another stage.

Before I give my opinion, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. Just now, in his 40-minute speech, he gave us an excellent picture of what is happening with this legislation. He explained why we in the Bloc Quebecois are opposed to it, and why both the Government of Quebec at the time—the Parti Quebecois—and the newly elected government—the Liberal Party of Quebec—have opposed it.

A unanimous resolution by the National Assembly made it clear to Ottawa that the Government of Quebec was in total disagreement with the creation of such a law. Thus, I congratulate my hon. friend and I say it could not have been expressed more clearly.

Nevertheless, I can see that the Liberal members and those from other parties may not understand Quebec's environmental procedures. At present, we are going through the environmental assessment process in my region.

After the extraordinary flooding in 1996 in the Saguenay, which has cost over a billion dollars, the Parti Quebecois government of the day set up the Nicolet Commission. This commission examined everything that happened in relation to the flood and in its recommendations said that the Lac Kénogami basin had to be consolidated. Then, the government acted.

It began putting infrastructure in place, but then went even farther. After the initial steps toward correcting the problems that identified, we are now in the second phase which is the project to regularize the water levels in the Lac Kénogami watershed, and this is being done within the BAPE.

This commission is headed by a chair and members who travel to the region concerned and hold hearings. So, this commission has a maximum time period in which to consult the public and table its recommendations.

In the Saguenay, the BAPE process will last four months. There are two stages. The purpose of the first stage of the public hearing is to allow the public and the commission to ask questions about every aspect of the project.

The second stage of the public hearings, which will follow, ensures that the commission hears the public's opinion and suggestions. Any individual, group or municipality who so wishes may express a view on the project, whether in the form of a brief or oral presentation. I will give members a general overview of the project.

I hope that what happened to us will never happen again anywhere. What happened in the Saguenay during the 1996 flood was horrendous.

This project is to build infrastructures for regulating water levels in the Lake Kénogami drainage basin, in Ville de Saguenay. This is where the whole thing started, and we all know what happened.

The project has five parts: modernization of the spillways, work above Lake Kénogami, construction of the Rivière-des-Sables sill, and consolidation and forward management.

The first phase of the project, now underway, aims to improve existing spillways and deploy additional measuring instruments in the drainage basin. The second phase, addressed by the current environmental impact study, would include the work at the Péribonka reservoir, Lake Kénogami and Rivière-des-Sables, as well as provide for the implementation of a forward management system.

This process and Quebec's legislation show just how hard Quebec has worked. People always say that Quebec is so picky about environmental issues that it created another process to allow for public participation.

I have attended many of the hearings, and I am even going to present a brief of my views because this is in my riding. Even though this is the Quebec government, I will be presenting a brief.

This is a transparent process. It is why the statistics the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie was reading a while ago on public satisfaction with the environmental assessment process and the Bureau d'audiences publiques du Québec show how satisfied and reassured the public is when this whole process is followed.

Why would this government come along and duplicate what we are doing and doing well ourselves? Why spend millions of dollars to duplicate efforts in an area that is not even under their jurisdiction? There may be somewhat of a shared jurisdiction, but we do our utmost for environmental protection. What the federal government is proposing is a waste of time.

It has been months, years maybe, since the last time this was brought up in a bill. With this one, time and energy are being wasted here in Ottawa in order to duplicate what is being done so well in Quebec. I would like to ask this government to withdraw its bill and to exempt Quebec from it, because we do not need it.

Given what is going to be happening with Rivière aux Sables and Lake Kénogami, the people in my region are afraid this government will take advantage of this bill to slow down the democratic process we are engaged in.

We do not need that. We know what has to be done. We have created structures, and it was not even the Parti Quebecois that did so. This dates from the time of the Bourassa government. Oddly enough, the present member for Lac-Saint-Louis was the environment minister at that time. Today, instead of objecting, he is unmoved that this Liberal government is interfering in our areas of jurisdiction—when one is the sponsor of a bill one needs to be behind it at all times. I find that curious.

I think what I have said here and to the other parties of Canada is important, and that is that the process ought to be applied in the same way where they live. What I am saying to the federal government is “Stay where you belong, look after your own areas of jurisdiction and we will keep on doing a good job. It may not be perfect, but we will keep on making improvements”.

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

Madam Speaker, in 1994 the then minister of the environment and deputy prime minister moved second reading of a bill known as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. She described the legislation as “one of the most outstanding environmental acts in the world. With the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its important amendments, Canada will be a world leader in environmental thinking and practice”.

As Environmental Defence Canada, a national organization that was founded in 1984 and dedicated to helping Canadians protect the environment, noted in its submission to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, there were very high hopes for the future of environmental assessment when CEAA was proclaimed in force in 1995. It noted:

We supported its promises of increased access to information, increased public participation, and access to participant funding for citizens to become involved in panel reviews of environmental assessments.

More than five years later, Environmental Defence Canada was forced to conclude that CEAA was a staggering failure across Canada. Others who testified before the committee shared this view.

We heard from citizens about difficulties in even getting major projects reviewed under CEAA. The Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Caledon, consisting of more than 2,500 members, has been fighting to convince the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 1998 to apply CEAA to a proposed rock quarry project that has a planned extraction rate of up to 2.5 million tonnes of aggregate per year.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has acknowledged that this project will in fact result in the destruction of fish habitat unless effective mitigation measures are employed. The question is whether such effective mitigation measures are even possible in the first place.

Instead of commencing a comprehensive study pursuant to the regulations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has chosen to ignore the CEAA requirement that environmental assessment of a project be conducted as early as practicable in the planning stages of the project. Such a decision also flies in the face of the so-called CEAA coordination regulation providing that where a federal authority such as DFO receives a project description, it shall within 30 days of receipt of the information determine whether there should be an environmental assessment of the project.

Officials advised us that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not in fact trigger any environmental assessment of a project until after: one, it has received complete information on possible measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on fish habitat; and two, it has concluded that prevention and mitigation will not work.

As the coalition pointed out, this Department of Fisheries and Oceans practice is duplicative and inefficient. It makes no sense to assess mitigation options internally in order to determine that mitigation will not work and then trigger an environmental assessment process to review and study those same mitigation options. The current bill does nothing to address this triggering problem under the fisheries act.

We heard a number of witnesses complain about CEAA's failure to ensure that people get timely access to information. In particular, John Lavoie, a trapper living and working northeast of Thunder Bay, took the time to tell us about his difficulties in obtaining records relating to a CEAA screening of a proposed hydroelectric project. Despite over 20 letters and telephone calls to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, he did not receive any records prior to the conclusion of the assessment, the issuance of the authorization or the start of the construction.

Mr. Lavoie made the not unreasonable suggestion that a responsible authority must give the public an opportunity, just an opportunity, to examine and comment on a screening report and related documents upon the receipt of a written request for participation. I do not think that is unreasonable. The government has ignored this recommendation and we are sure to see more people frustrated by not getting the right documents at the right time.

The most distressing testimony and the clearest signal of CEAA's failure came from Norman de la Chevrotière, president of the Inverhuron and District Ratepayers Association. He told us about the association's fight to get a CEAA panel review of the world's largest above ground, high level radioactive waste storage site at the Bruce nuclear facility. He stated that the federal Minister of the Environment approved the project without a panel review, even though the association and others raised serious concerns about the health effects caused by the existing and future radiation releases at the site.

Mr. de la Chevrotière described it this way:

So when it came time to participate in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process, we thought this is a slam dunk. If anything deserves a panel review, this has got to be it. But we better not be complacent, we better participate in the process. We spent thousands upon thousands of dollars of our own money because we had no access to funding. We hired experts who uncovered a number of apparent inadequacies and uncertainties.

We weren't the only ones who were concerned: the local MP [the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound]; the local Medical Officer of Health; the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; Chippewas of Nawash; [and others]. It was overwhelming public concern in terms of asking for what we thought was something very reasonable, an independent and expert assessment. We didn't get it.

Later, Mr. de la Chevrotière concluded with the following plea:

If the world's largest nuclear waste storage facility, housing the most toxic and deadliest of all industrial waste products does not merit a panel review, what would?

I am here imploring this committee; I am begging this committee to please make changes to the act so no other citizen's group has to go through the ordeal that we went through. Projects of this scope and magnitude should be subject to a panel review and it should be mandatory. All relevant information has to be on the public record, and it should be guaranteed. I am asking this committee to please do that.

Put bluntly, we failed Mr. de la Chevrotière. The minister failed this citizen's group.

We could not help him because the committee was constrained from the outset to examining only those sections identified in Bill C-9. This constraint was justified on the basis that only the Minister of the Environment could dictate the scope of the review and changes to CEAA as set out in the legislative review section. Not surprisingly, the minister missed the concerns raised by people such as Mr. de la Chevrotière and declared CEAA to be fundamentally sound.

In fact, it is truly amazing that the Minister of the Environment could declare in his report that panel review is the core strength of the environmental assessment act. Yet he failed to appreciate that out of 30,000 screenings only one has been referred to a panel on the basis that significant adverse environmental effects were identified or that there was uncertainty about the significance of such effects.

If this is the core strength or the spine of the act, then we can only conclude that the environmental assessment act we have today is a spineless regime. As I will discuss in a few minutes, proposed government amendments will further erode opportunities for panel reviews. Any trace amounts of a spine in CEAA will likely vanish.

We were also prevented from seriously examining the core structures and features of CEAA to determine their effectiveness. For example, we had to ignore the issue of self-assessments, even though we were advised as a committee by some witnesses that an effective regime could not exist where departments conduct assessments and in fact grant the approvals of those very same projects.

We also had to pass on providing a definition of what a significant adverse environmental effect is in the first place. Second, we had to pass on ensuring assessment of cumulative effects, particularly on a regional basis were not taken into account. Third, we had to pass on building in powers for the agency to make enforceable decisions and impose penalties for non-compliance with CEAA. Fourth, we had to pass on providing for the strategic environmental assessment of proposed policies, programs and plans.

On that last point, members may be aware that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has already criticized federal departments for failing to implement the environmental assessment of policies and programs as required by a 1990 cabinet directive. The followup 1999 cabinet directive also has not been applied, thus highlighting the necessity of introducing a compliance mechanism into CEAA itself.

More than one witness told us that the failure to include any enforcement provisions in CEAA renders it toothless and of little effect. CEAA is like a jellyfish of environmental assessment regimes, toothless as I said earlier, in fact spineless.

Notwithstanding the restraints on review, the committee did make some improvements to Bill C-9. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight those.

Government accountability has been improved with the requirement under new section 16.3 that the responsible authority must document and make available to the public its determinations with respect to screenings and comprehensive studies.

For the purposes of facilitating public access to records and providing notice of environmental assessments, there will be an expanded registry consisting of an Internet site as well as project files. Under subsection 55.1(2)(a), a notice of commencement must be posted on the Internet site within 14 days of an assessment commencing.

The committee provided additional accountability by including a paragraph, subsection 55.1(3)(e), that information included on the Internet site would have to be posted at least 30 days before any decision could be taken by a responsible authority, the minister or the agency.

The committee also fought hard to close a very glaring loophole that permitted crown corporations to avoid the necessity of conducting environmental assessments. This is what we asked the private sector to do.

While CEAA originally contemplated bringing crowns under the act pursuant to regulation, the government had failed to act except in relation to port authorities. Now in this bill, because of an amendment done by the committee, there is a statutory requirement that regulations be passed within three years bringing crown corporations under CEAA. During this period the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has undertaken to appear before the committee to give progress reports on the development of regulations.

I am very heartened by Mr. Connelly and Ms. Thompson, who I am sure are listening very attentively to this speech and other speeches that have been made in the chamber this afternoon. I am heartened that they will be taking the time to visit us in committee to let us know how those regulations are coming along over the next three years so that we can avoid a last minute rush to put regulations in place as a result possibly of missing a deadline.

The committee also put in place a legislative review mechanism that would not repeat the mistake of letting the minister dictate the scope of the review. Within seven years after Bill C-9 receives royal assent, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of CEAA shall be undertaken by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as may be designated. Perhaps then, and probably only then, will we be able to adequately address the concerns that Mr. de la Chevrotiere pleaded for our committee to address.

It must also be noted that the Liberal majority on the committee did manage to block some key attempts at improving the bill itself.

Presently, under CEAA, the minister has the power to refer a project that has been subjected to a comprehensive study to a panel review. If there are further questions about a particular project after a comprehensive study has been done, the minister today has an opportunity to move it to a panel review. In fact this has happened one time before after benchmarking our 30,000 screenings. According to witnesses, this has had the effect of causing proponents and responsible authorities to better comply with the requirements of a comprehensive study in the first place.

Now under section 21.1, once the minister refers the project to a comprehensive study, it may not, even if there are other questions down the road, subsequently be referred to a panel review. The minister has intentionally tied his hands so that he will be no longer accountable for not answering further questions. He will be able to say that his hands are tied and that he is restricted by what the act is. This is a glaring mistake. There will not be any proponent or responsible authority that would willingly conclude that a comprehensive study will not suffice.

During the course of the committee review, I introduced an amendment to provide for a panel review. Our national parks are our most valuable treasures in terms of protecting our ecological integrity and we should have a higher regime when it comes to them. I know the Minister of Canadian Heritage once shared that same opinion as well.

In the amendment I proposed that if a project might cause a significant adverse environmental effect on a park, or on a park reserve, or on wildlife that frequents such area or on the air affecting such an area, it should be reviewed by the panel review. The amendment was tailored on an undertaking that the minister publicly gave following the receipt of a report on the health of Canada's national parks. As a result, I expected this amendment would enjoy sufficient Liberal support to be passed. After all, it was a concept espoused by the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage. Stunningly, most Liberal members refused to assist the minister responsible and the amendment was not carried.

As with the Species at Risk Act and other environmental legislation, the government has been unable to respect and accept amendments made by the committee. However I will tip my hat because it was more constructive and more willing to do work at the report stage this time than it has in the past, by negotiating common language.

I would like to highlight one reversal that I think is a mistake. In particular the government felt the need to roll back the provision that documents be posted on the Internet at least 30 days before any decision was taken to 15 days. Provincial governments, including the government of Ernie Eves and Mike Harris, have say that 15 days is fine. I do not see why the federal government would have to go to a 15 day component.

Also, it is not clear what kind of information will be posted on the Internet itself other than a mere notice of commencement. In other words, the public will likely have a difficult time ascertaining what is being assessed, the scope of the assessment and other factors relating to the decision. It is hard to understand why the government will not allow citizens the opportunity to review documents on which environmental assessments are based before decisions are taken.

Given the failures of CEAA and the government imposed constraints on the review of it, the committee has been left to draft another report that addresses the major deficiencies of the current environmental assessment regime raised by witnesses and other members of the public.

It poses this question. Ten years on is the federal environmental assessment making a significant contribution to sustainable development and a healthy environment? The answer today is no. Canada is not a world leader in environmental assessment. The committee report that will be tabled in the House in the coming weeks we hope will address those inadequacies. After this report has been tabled and the minister considers what is in the report and we review CEAA with the mandatory review, maybe then and only then will we be able to address the concerns that have been espoused by Mr. de la Chevrotiere.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on third reading of Bill C-9 which is a bill to amend the existing environmental assessment act.

In terms of understanding the context we need to have a bit of a review of the history of environmental assessment in Canada. That really began in the early 1970s by way of orders in council.

In 1973 the initial stage had no statutory authority, but over a period of the next 10 to 11 years we evolved into various pieces of legislation that ultimately resulted in the issuance of what were called environmental assessment and review guidelines and an order was issued pursuant to the Department of the Environment Act in 1984. The initial stages of the process were in fact, interestingly, given the sequence of what we see afterwards, determined by the government. These guidelines were not enforceable under any statute by the federal government.

Interestingly, the guidelines were being applied mostly in a voluntary manner, but then in 1989, with the Rafferty-Alameda Dam project in Saskatchewan, which was ultimately taken through the Federal Court system by environmental groups who were opposed to that project, it was determined by the court that those guidelines were enforceable.

Therefore, for the first time the government had to confront the reality that the Federal Court and ultimately the Supreme Court in a separate decision were determining that the federal government did have the legislative authority and had enforcement mechanisms available to it to apply environmental assessments in a meaningful way. It was a major step forward in the environmental assessment process in Canada.

In that period of time legislation was brought forward and ultimately passed. While that was working its way through the legislative process, the Supreme Court of Canada made a further pronouncement in this area on environmental assessments which was quite surprising to the federal government and certainly to the provinces. It was that those guidelines were, in fact, applicable to provincial projects so long as they affected federal interests. That decision was in 1992. In 1992 under the Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney legislation was passed. We had an election in 1993 and the legislation was not proclaimed by this government until 1995.

Contained in that legislation was a provision in section 72 that required a review after five years. As we heard from the minister today, the review was initiated in 1999 but did not get underway until well into 2000. Part of the process of the review was a requirement that a regulatory advisory committee be appointed.

If I can digress for a moment, it is interesting to look at what our experience was and what the regulatory advisory committee and the minister were confronted with. I pulled out a 12 month period of assessments for 2000-01. During that period of time there were 6,147 projects initiated that would have required an assessment.

Under the legislation there are various forms of assessments. The basic ones that we have referred to are screenings, comprehensive studies, and panel reviews.

The screenings are a summary process from within the department that is responsible for the project. Of those 6,147 that year, only one panel review was ordered. There were eight comprehensive studies. That leaves 6,138 that were done by the summary screening, a very small percentage.

The eight comprehensive studies require a more detailed review of the project. When that review is completed it is submitted to the minister, who then causes it to be published and gives interested parts of the community an opportunity to respond. Then ultimately the minister makes the decision. I should point out that there is no need for the minister to give any reasons or explanations for the decision made.

The members of the panel review on the other hand are appointed by the minister and conduct what everybody would see as an administrative tribunal type of process resulting in recommendations with explanations and reasoning supplied to the minister, who again ultimately makes the decision. That was the process. As I indicated, in that period of time there were few panel reviews and few comprehensive studies.

Over the entire period of the legislation, up to the time the review got to the environment committee, there were slightly less than 40,000 projects reviewed. Of that number there were nine panel reviews, less than 100 comprehensive studies, and there are three panel reviews still in progress.

I would like to note some of the reviews that were conducted. One of them, and the minister mentioned it today, was the Voisey's Bay project. The Sable Gas projects were reviewed. The Sunshine Ski Development in Alberta and the Canadian Millennium Pipeline project in Ontario were reviewed as were a number of other ones, all quite significant projects. However, what that list does not say is that there were also a large number of other significant projects that either did not get a comprehensive study, certainly did not get a panel review, and almost all of which went through the basic screening.

The one that I always point to in terms of its magnitude is the one project that would allow for the storage of radioactive waste on the Bruce Peninsula. When completed, this will be the biggest site in the world for storage of radioactive waste. That project did not require a panel review or a comprehensive study review. It simply went through one of those basic screenings.

The other project that I tend to mention was in Manitoba and actually crosses over into Saskatchewan. It was a forestry project that required a number of bridges and dams to be built that would have allowed the project proponent to develop the forestry industry in that region. Geographically that was a land surface that was to be significantly impacted from an environmental standpoint and was equal to almost 25% of the province of Manitoba. That project did not require, under the discretionary clause of the minister, a panel review or a comprehensive study review. There are lists that are much longer than the two that I have mentioned.

Where we are at when this legislation got to the regulatory advisory committee, or RAC, is that type of setting: 40,000 projects; 12 panel reviews, only 9 of which had been conducted; and less than 100 comprehensive studies. The proposed legislation, however, that they were given at that point was extremely narrow. It really did very little to allow them to make strong, comprehensive recommendations.

In addition to the framework within which it was forced to work, the committee did make a number of recommendations within that framework and a number of those were not even accepted by the department when the bill finally got to the House at first and second reading. It then worked its way through committee, but in confronting it, we in the NDP had three tests that we applied to it.

We asked whether it went far enough to protect our environment, and whether it strengthened or weakened the legislation. We concluded that overall, in spite of some improvements, it weakened the legislation.

The second criteria we applied was the process itself. Bill C-9 is designed to streamline and speed up the environmental assessment process. There are some good arguments as to why that should occur, but the process which would be instituted by this bill is designed entirely to benefit the proponents and developers of these projects, and not to protect the environment and the public.

The third assessment that we applied to the bill was whether it strengthened the ability--and we are talking here of transparency--for people, community members, NGOs, and sectoral interests to deal with the process. Was it more transparent and accountable? Was it more accessible for groups who may wish to know about the project and oppose it if they could get sufficient information as to its scope?

On the basis of all three criteria, this bill failed. As a result we will be opposing the bill when it comes for a vote at third reading.

The other point I would like to make is that there were a good number of attempts at amendments in committee. For example, the NDP proposed 50-some amendments and all the opposition parties proposed amendments, very few of which got through. The point I would make in this regard is that the bill is extremely limited. It does not deal with the basic problem that our environmental assessment process in this country is inadequate. The bill is about tinkering and a little fine-tuning.

One of the major amendments we wanted to deal with dealt with the issue of transparency and accountability. The law in the bill as it stands now would have no enforcement provisions in it. Bill C-9 would not have any changes in the law in that regard.

There were a number of amendments from the various opposition parties with regard to that issue. It was not just about enforcement. Let me use one example. One of the problems we often run into is that a proponent will actually begin work on a project. There is little that the government agency can do to stop that. It can issue some orders in the extreme, but it has no ability to enforce those orders.

We had made a number of proposals in that regard because it is a serious issue. Often, if the work is initiated before approval is given under the assessment process, it becomes a fait accompli. There is nothing that the agency can do but allow the project to go ahead because the trees have been cut down and damage already has been done to the environment, as well as any number of other consequences over which we have no way of penalizing the proponent who has broken the legislation. There is no way of enforcing the provisions of the legislation.

The other point though and again there were a number of amendments on this, was also requiring the government departments to comply with the legislation. We had repeated examples of the legislation being skirted, not being fully applied. Access to documentation was not given in compliance with either the letter or the spirit of the legislation. Again, there is no provision in the legislation to deal with that. The law in effect at this point does not require either enforcement or compliance and the amendments proposed to Bill C-9 will not require that enforcement in compliance. It is just one example of where the bill is so lacking.

The additional point I would like to make and I want to note this, is there are some positives in this but they have not been carried far enough. Again the minister in addressing third reading today mentioned extending the provisions of the bill to crown corporations. Unfortunately, that is not going to occur right away. Crown corporations are going to continue to be exempt for another three years once the legislation is passed.

The coordination that is being planned under this legislation in light of first nations environmental assessments is not clear enough. It was an attempt but it is not clear enough to really make that a coordinated effort between this level of government and first nations.

In summary, we have gone through almost exactly 30 years of environmental assessment at the federal level in this country. We were beginning to develop through guidelines in almost precedents the ability to begin to deal realistically and effectively with environmental assessments. The legislation in 1992 which finally became proclaimed in 1995, was actually a step backward when we look at what happened.

I want to digress for a moment in my summary. One of the things we have to appreciate is that the legislation because it had so few panel reviews was not able to develop a body of law. I do not mean rigid precedents as we have in some of our court systems but a general body of law that would have had experts in the area making decisions and recommendations to the minister but have those in writing as guidelines for the various departments which apply this legislation.

We do not have that. We have had nine reports and we are waiting for three more. We badly need to develop those guidelines so that individual members of the bureaucracy across this country will have a much clearer picture of what they are supposed to do when they are doing those basic screenings. We do not have that. I have to say we are not going to get this in this legislation, Bill C-9.

This is going to require, as Bill C-9 does, a further review. One can only hope that at that time the review will be more meaningful, that it will in fact encompass the whole of the legislation. I can forecast that we will see very few changes from the process that we have seen under the existing law. In three and five years from now, we will have to go back and do this properly and do a full review and get much more meaningful legislation.

In the interim we will obviously as a party be monitoring this but we will be voting against this legislation when it comes to third reading.

[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.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-9 and this first group of amendments to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or CEAA.

The bill is a result of the mandatory five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. While I was not part of the committee process, it is extraordinary to me that the government would introduce such a volume of amendments at report stage. Perhaps the standing committee thought it was the master of its own destiny and did something with the bill and now the government must fix it to suit itself.

The amendments in this group are almost exclusively government amendments to the bill and that seems a little curious after it has been through the clause by clause committee process.

The government failed to allow all of CEAA to be reviewed and limited debate on a number of important aspects of environmental assessment including the advancement of adaptive management techniques. This is regrettable and certainly was a big issue with some companies in my riding that were looking for movement from the government on that issue.

However, there are improvements to the bill which were passed in committee. They must be recognized and appreciated for the improvements they bring to the bill.

The bill has positives but they are clearly not entirely the answer. The amendments the government has put forward at report stage are no different. Some of the amendments are needed as last minute improvements to language and small technicalities. Others are designed to subvert the intent of the work of the committee.

The Canadian Alliance takes great exception and objects strongly to these tactics by the government. The Alliance opposes amendments designed to limit reporting by the government or any amendment designed to reduce transparency that was proposed by the committee.

On the positive side Bill C-9 would create a Canadian environmental assessment registry which would provide more public access to documents surrounding a project through an online database. A coordinator position would be created to administer this registry.

The committee often made positive improvements to Bill C-9 despite the best wishes of the government and the PMO. I assume that those improvements are being corrected to the government's satisfaction.

Here are some of the improvements. First, new scoping provisions would begin before a project is approved. These provisions would assist both project proponents and other interested groups to have a better understanding of the full scope of the project prior to submissions or objections being made. This transparency should increase trust between the groups that have traditionally clashed over environmental issues.

Second, the online registry would be improved to provide more and better information and to ensure that those without Internet access could still obtain the information they sought. However, certain government amendments would seek to subtly reduce some aspects of this transparency and we oppose such attempts.

The third improvement concerns the inclusion of reasonable time limits for the release of documentation. The Alliance amendments were accepted to ensure that the information posted on the registry would be timely and available to answer any concerns before significant issues develop.

Fourth, the legislation would automatically be reviewed in seven years. The review would be conducted by a committee which would allow the whole act to be opened up for improvements, not just sections that the government would deem important, as occurred in this round.

On the negative side the review is critical given the flaws that remain in the act following the review process.

First, crown corporations have been exempted from coverage under CEAA and over the next three years would be allowed to create separate regulations governing environmental assessments. The government did not adequately explain why separate regulatory regimes should be needed for any but a handful of crown corporations. The government should have provided a list of crown corporations requiring exemption with the reasons why. This was never done.

Second, Bill C-9 would amend the act to allow the minister to revisit an environmental assessment and return to the public for further consultations prior to issuing a decision statement. This could allow the minister to delay issuance of a decision statement simply because an issue was politically sensitive. Such discretionary power could be open to political abuse.

Third, the Alliance lobbied to provide municipal and local land use authorities equal input into the assessment process as would be enjoyed by first nations bands. Municipal governments could be affected by federal projects near or in their jurisdictions. They should have an equal right to express their concerns within the assessment process. Sadly, they do not.

Despite these concerns, the Canadian Alliance always seeks to balance environmental preservation and economic development. We support a timely, single window approval process with enforceable environmental regulations and meaningful penalties. While by no means perfect, Bill C-9 would amend the CEAA in a positive way in this respect by encouraging partnerships with interested parties on all projects. It is a step toward streamlining the approval process and providing proponents and interested parties access to needed information.

Between now and the next review of CEAA, the Canadian Alliance will be watching closely to see how the changes put forward in Bill C-9 would affect environmental assessment in Canada so that we can take the next step and improve upon the process. Environmental protection and the needs of industry must be meshed and both viewpoints must be considered in this process.

We reluctantly support Bill C-9 in the interest of compromise so that the reasonable amendments won in committee will not have been won in vain.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise with respect to the report stage of Bill C-9. In spite of the comments that have been made by my hon. colleague, I would like to say how much I think that the committee's deliberations in fact were what I believe to be a true characterization of how in committee we should work to find consensus with respect to issues that on their appearance may divide us.

In that spirit, I would like to thank the members of the committee for the efforts that they have made with respect to making this legislation a practical working document and an understandable document that will guide Canadians, in partnership with both levels of government, the provincial and the federal, to understand the workings of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

In particular, I would like to thank the former parliamentary secretary, the member for Kitchener Centre, who in fact shepherded much of this legislation, at least the clause-by-clause process, through committee. I would like to express my appreciation to the member.

The standing committee heard from dozens of groups and from citizens about the need to improve Bill C-9. In fact, there was a wealth of information that was transformed into 75 amendments, which I believe will result in very practical improvements.

I would also like to say that almost 75 amendments were made to Bill C-9 during committee stage. As has been pointed out, these have been distilled down to two groups of clauses that will streamline the bill. I believe that Canadians and our environment will benefit from a legacy that the bill will establish and will continue through the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I really do not know with respect to the points that have been raised by the hon. member that appear to be an exception of the spirit of that act, but I would like to reply to just one part of the concerns that he raised with respect to the conflict between provincial and federal legislation.

I would like to point out to the member that in 1998 there were approximately 160 projects that required both federal and provincial environmental assessment. In 1998, a Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization and its subagreement on environmental assessment were signed by all provinces and territories, except Quebec, providing the foundation for a cooperative approach when both levels of government have environmental assessment responsibilities.

That spirit is embodied in clause 2(b.2) of the bill, which signals the importance of cooperation and coordination between federal and provincial governments when both levels of government are required, through their respective legislation, to conduct an environmental assessment of a project.

I hope that the hon. member will be in fact satisfied to some extent, although his province has not signed on to that accord, that the framework of the spirit and intent is embodied in Bill C-9.

I would like to focus my comments with respect to the timing of decisions and then on a few legal housekeeping items, as indicated by the Chair.

During our review of Bill C-9, Jeff Barnes of the Canadian Construction Association told the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that under the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act there have been unfortunate situations where the public only finds out about a project “when the bulldozers arrive on site”. Obviously that is not appropriate or satisfactory.

Bill C-9 addresses this problem through the establishment of a government-wide Internet site for project information. This means that Canadians will be able to go on line to learn about projects proposed for their communities. Among other things, the Internet site will include notification that an assessment of a proposed project has started, notices requesting input from the public, and environmental assessment decisions. The standing committee strengthened and expanded the provisions for the Internet site in several ways.

For example, the notice of the beginning of an environmental assessment must be posted on the Internet within 14 days of the start of the assessment. Decisions on whether to require a follow-up program for a proposed project would have to be posted. Decisions on the scope of the project would also have to be included. We heard about this whole matter of scoping. It would pre-empt some of the other processes so the public would know whether decisions are being made with respect to scoping at the beginning of the process. The terms of reference for a mediator or a review panel would also be available online. All of these changes would help to ensure Canadians have the information they need to participate in environmental assessments involving the Government of Canada.

The standing committee made an amendment to delay any decision until 30 days have passed from the posting on the Internet site of the last document associated with the project. The idea of providing a reasonable period of time for the public to access information on the registry before decisions are made makes a lot of sense. This has been incorporated into the bill. There are problems however with the way the committee amendment is structured. The proposed motions before the committee have several refinements to the standing committee's original approach and I would like to outline them.

First, for screening level assessments that deal with smaller, less complex projects, the government motion provides that decisions may only occur 15 days after the notice of commencement. Information about the scope of the project would be posted on the Internet site. Motion No. 22 is designed to prevent situations where public access to reports may be delayed, even though final decisions have been made. Countless numbers of times great exception was taken to that through the public participation process.

Motions Nos. 15 and 17 are designed to provide the public and interested parties with ample time to comment on environmental assessment reports for larger and more complex projects. They ensure that these reports would be publicly available for at least 30 days before decisions would be made about those projects. These amendments would add precision to the important changes made by the standing committee. As a result, the public would be guaranteed a reasonable period of time in which it could access information and provide input, possibly influencing governmental decisions.

The balance of those clauses are legal housekeeping changes that would correct errors with respect to ensuring concurrence between the French and English versions of the bill and to ensure that Bill C-9 is consistent with other recent legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Today the government is moving 27 motions to again amend certain aspects of the work done by the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development .

It must be kept in mind—and this strikes me as vital at this point in the debate—that this is a bill to amend existing legislation. The essence is there. The main thrust of the opposition from Quebec lies, of course in our rejection of the amendments, but as well in our opposition to the original legislation. Legislation was tabled in 1990, Bill C-78, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I will remind hon. members that the National Assembly made a unanimous appeal to Ottawa, reminding the federal government that it had its own environmental assessment process which worked just fine, and that in fact many aspects of it constituted a model for the world.

I will remind hon. members that Quebec created the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement or BAPE in 1980. In 1978, we introduced our own environmental assessment system as part of the environmental quality act. Two years later, BAPE was created. Well before that, five years earlier, in 1975, Quebec had adopted an environmental assessment process.

In other words, as far back as 1975, Quebec had its own process of environmental assessment, which was strengthened by the creation of the BAPE five years later, in 1980.

In 1990, the federal government introduced a bill to create its own environmental assessment process, which interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

As I have said, Quebec spoke with one voice by passing a motion in its National Assembly as follows:

That... the National Assembly strongly disapproves of the federal government's bill to establish a federal environmental assessment process, because it is contrary to the higher interests of Quebec, and opposes its passage by the federal Parliament.

This motion, passed on March 18, 1992 by the National Assembly, set the tone for the opposition by all of Quebec, in solidarity and regardless of political affiliations, to this system and to the process the federal government had just put in place.

I would also like to remind you that on February 28, 1992, Quebec environment minister Pierre Paradis wrote to the federal environment minister, Jean Charest, to say that he was totally opposed to the process. Mr. Paradis wrote to Mr. Charest as follows: “Despite your explanations, we believe that the assessment system proposed in the bill will not be feasible, either for the federal government or for the Government of Quebec. It has already caused much insecurity among those involved, who would have to put up with the many overlaps the bill would allow.

We believe that the current provisions of the bill are far from sufficient to eliminate all possibility of overlap and provide an opportunity for practical agreements on implementation methods for our respective procedures”.

Thus, on February 28, 1992, following a motion passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly, Quebec environment minister Pierre Paradis wrote to the then federal Minister of the Environment, Jean Charest—who is now the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party and engaged in an election campaign. The federal government refused to admit what it really wanted or to recognize that this bill interfered with the defence of Quebec's interests.

About two weeks ago, when I heard the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, during the campaign, telling the federal government that he intended to do everything in his power, and devote all his energies to trying to bring the environmental assessment process back to Quebec, I found it rather paradoxical. Because, at the time, he refused to bend to the wishes of the Quebec National Assembly.

Today, on the campaign trail, he tells us that he would be able to eliminate the environmental assessment process, which he authorized himself in 1992. This kind of double-speak is totally unacceptable.

This bill, unfortunately, tends once again to strengthen the underlying legislation. It creates distortions and overlaps with the Quebec environmental assessment process, which is a good process, according to all the stakeholders.

If Quebec were not assuming its responsibilities, that would be one thing, maybe. However, the opposite is true, the process is working well. If we compare the environmental assessment process in place in Quebec and the work of the BAPE to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which I did in committee, we see that Quebec's process allows for broader consultations than federal legislation in recent years, since it was adopted.

Why would we want to strengthen a federal act when the process works well in Quebec?

What we have here today is a fait accompli. The government opposite has refused to take Quebeckers' interests into account.

Back at second reading, I mentioned a study done by the Government of Quebec several years ago on the application of the federal legislation. The Government of Quebec made comments about the legislation. I would like to quote from an analysis the federal government received at that time from the Minister of the Environment, Jean Charest. The Government of Quebec felt that, and I quote:

Bill C-13 is a steamroller condemning everybody to a forced uniformization, which might in turn jeopardize the environmental assessment process in Quebec and needlessly bring into question all our efforts in this area.

Members will recall that a judgment rendered several years ago by Justice La Forest stated that a federal department or panel cannot use the guidelines order as a colourable device to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction which are unconnected to the relevant federal powers.

We believe that this attempt to further strengthen, with Bill C-9, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, duplicates environmental assessment processes that already work well.

What the federal government could do is recognize Quebec's legislation and review process, and recognize the BAPE as the sole body to review projects, given that it has demonstrated that the process works well.

Therefore, inevitably, we cannot support this bill, and we will be voting against it when the time comes.

The federal government has to understand one thing, and that is that the process works well in Quebec. Why duplicate what already works?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 16 with the following:

“in relation to a project, the responsible authority shall publish a notice of that course of action in the Registry and, notwithstanding any”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 16 the following:

“(4) A responsible authority shall not take any course of action under subsection (1) before the 15th day after the inclusion on the Internet site of

(a) notice of the commencement of the environmental assessment;

(b) a description of the scope of the project; and

(c) where the responsible authority, in accordance with subsection 18(3), gives the public an opportunity to participate in the screening of a project, a description of the factors to be taken into consideration in the environmental assessment and of the scope of those factors or an indication of how such a description may be obtained.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-9, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 16 on page 16 with the following:

“sable veille à la tenue d'une consultation publique sur les”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 42 on page 17 with the following:

“susceptible ou non, compte tenu de la mise en”

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be amended

(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 7 on page 18 with the following:

“(2) Before issuing the environmental assess-”

(b) by adding after line 16 on page 18 the following:

“(3) The Minister shall not issue the environmental assessment decision statement before the 30th day after the inclusion on the Internet site of

(a) notice of the commencement of the environmental assessment;

(b) a description of the scope of the project;

(c) where the Minister, under paragraph 21.1(1)(a), refers a project to the responsible authority to continue a comprehensive study,

(i) notice of the Minister's decision to so refer the project, and

(ii) a description of the factors to be taken into consideration in the environmental assessment and of the scope of those factors or an indication of how such a description may be obtained; and

(d) the comprehensive study report that is to be taken into consideration by a responsible authority in making its decision under subsection 37(1) or a description of how a copy of the report may be obtained.”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-9, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 33 to 41 on page 20 with the following:

“(3) L'autorité responsable qui prend la décision visée à l'alinéa (1)b) à l'égard d'un projet est tenue de publier un avis de cette décision dans le registre, et aucune attribution conférée sous le régime de toute autre loi fédérale ou de ses règlements ne peut être exercée de façon à permettre la mise en oeuvre, en tout ou en partie, du projet.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-9, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 47 on page 20 the following:

“(4) A responsible authority shall not take any course of action under subsection (1) before the 30th day after the report submitted by a mediator or a review panel or a summary of it has been included on the Internet site in accordance with paragraph 55.1(2)(p).”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-9, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 21 with the following:

“ment measures or for improving the quality”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-9, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 16 and 17 on page 26 with the following:

“study, the federal environmental assessment coordinator and, in any other case, the”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-9, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 26 with the following:

“Agency shall ensure that a copy of any”

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-9, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 40 on page 28 with the following:

“the Internet site;”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-9, in Clause 26, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 29 the following:

“(3) A screening report referred to in paragraph 55.1(2)(k) or a description of how a copy of it may be obtained shall be included in the Internet site not later than the decision referred to in paragraph 55.1(2)(r) that is based on the report, unless otherwise authorized by the Agency.”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-9, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 46 on page 31 with the following:

«sous le régime de la présente loi que l'Agence»

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-9, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 10 on page 34 with the following:

“domanial visée à l'alinéa a) de la définition de ce terme au”

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 7 on page 2 with the following:

“but does not include the Executive Council of—or a minister, department, agency or body of the government of—Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, a council of the band within the”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 36 on page 2 with the following:

“those lands, other than lands under the administration and control of the Commissioner of Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut,”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 3 on page 4 with the following:

“tive et en temps opportun au processus”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-9, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 18 to 20 on page 5 with the following:

“environnementale du projet si une autorité fédérale—autre que la société d'État—doit prendre”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-9, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 8 with the following:

“(2) An environmental assessment of a project under this section is”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-9, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 39 on page 10 with the following:

“éventuellement—de l'expertise ou des connaissances vou-”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-9, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 16 to 21 on page 11 with the following:

“cées:

(a) s'il n'y a qu'une autorité responsable du projet, par celle-ci;

(b) s'il y a plusieurs autorités responsables du projet, par celle qu'elles désignent conjointement ou, si elles ne le font pas dans un délai raisonnable, par celle que l'Agence dési-”

Motion No. 8

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

(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 18 on page 12 with the following:

“16.3 L'autorité responsable consigne et”

(b) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 12 with the following:

“tions pursuant to section 20.”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-9, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 33 to 44 on page 12 with the following:

“(3) Dans les cas où elle estime que la participation du public à l'examen préalable est indiquée ou dans les cas prévus par règlement, l'autorité responsable:

(a) verse au site Internet, avant de donner au public la possibilité d'examiner le rapport d'examen préalable et de faire des observations à son égard, une description de la portée du projet, des éléments à prendre en compte dans le cadre de l'examen préalable et de la portée de ceux-ci ou une indication de la façon d'obtenir copie de cette description;

(b) avant de prendre sa décision aux termes de l'article 20, donne au public la possibilité d'exami-”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-9, in Clause 11, be amended:

(a) by replacing line 16 on page 14 with the following:

“included in the Internet site.”

(b) by replacing line 9 on page 15 with the following:

“Canada Gazette and included in the Internet site.”

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

There are 27 motions on the Order Paper for Bill C-9 at report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 24.

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 25 to 27.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table

The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

In relation to the voting pattern, the Chair would like to highlight one particular voting application. In Group No. 1, the vote on Motion No. 3 has been applied to a series of 12 other motions. All these motions are technical in nature, that is to say, they propose modifications which make the English and French portions of the bill agreed.

Due to the editorial character of these motions, I have decided that one decision should apply to the entire series. Specifically, the vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, and 24.

Hon. members who believe that any one of these motions refer to the substance of the bill and that it should be put to a separate vote are invited to approach the Table and present their arguments to that effect as soon as possible.

If necessary, the Chair will readjust the voting patterns and inform the House accordingly.

I shall now propose to the House Motions Nos. 1 to 24 in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon and tomorrow with consideration of Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies legislation, followed by Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the Senate amendments to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

When we return on April 28, in addition to the bills I have just listed, if any remain, we will consider the legislation on RCMP pensions introduced earlier today—I believe it is C-31—and the Criminal Code bill that will be introduced tomorrow by one of my hon. cabinet colleagues. After that, we will move on to third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, if that stage has been reached.

I am looking forward to a number of committees reporting legislation in the near future and it would be our intention to proceed with report stages of those bills as quickly as possible, once the reports have been received.

The chief opposition whip has asked the House what is happening with the government motion concerning Iraq. Of course, we have debated Iraq this week and last week, and we even took a vote this week. As I indicated, during the next five days of the session at least—but that will depend on the progress we make—I do not intend to bring that motion back before the House. After that, we shall see.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the continuing fear of Liberal candidate Brian Innes is duly noted, but this afternoon the House will continue with the opposition day motion on the war in Iraq. There are discussions going on with regard to this subject which may continue today and otherwise.

As previously ordered, the House will not be sitting tomorrow.

On Monday, pursuant to what I just stated, we will return to consideration of Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies legislation, followed by report stage of Bill C-9, the environmental assessment legislation.

I am also looking forward, with the usual cooperation of all hon. members for an appropriate time and hopefully very soon, to resuming the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendments.

Thursday of next week, in other words a week from today, shall be an allotted day.

In the event that there are additions or other changes to this business, I shall communicate with other House leaders through the usual channels.

Committees of the House

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development has considered and held hearings on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as well as its predecessor, and agreed on December 11 just before the Christmas recess to report the bill with 76 amendments.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the officials and their colleagues of the committee for their cooperation.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for Davenport. I knew there was a standing order to that effect. We all listened with great interest to what he had to say.

There are some comments I want to make with respect to Bill C-2, the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment act, which was so eloquently introduced by the member for Yukon. The reason I want to make these remarks includes the fact that I was very proud to be involved with the Yukon self-government legislation in the House some years ago. I was particularly upset when the speaker from the Canadian Alliance today digressed into the morals and attitudes of members of Parliament and the tone of the House of Commons, when in fact I believe that we are following through morally on the legislation that went through the House, as we are on the Yukon umbrella final agreement, chapter 12, which says that a regime of the type represented by Bill C-2 must and should be put into place. I am delighted we were able to do that and that the member for Yukon introduced it.

The remarks of the member for Davenport are very well taken. The member has raised this point as a question: that the legislation will effectively replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and other assessment processes in the Yukon with an approach that is inclusive of other governments and decision making bodies and that ensures meaningful opportunities for public participation in assessments.

It is my understanding and I think the understanding of most members that this does not mean there is a lack of federal presence or a weakening of assessment standards. I think it means a move toward true sustainable development, integrating environmental, social and economic considerations when making decisions about projects. This is to the great benefit of future generations in the Yukon, and future generations in Canada. This is not something that has to do with just that one territory. The bill would move decision making closer to the people affected by the development projects. I agree with members here that it is a positive step.

However, the Government of Canada will continue to play a role in assessments involving federal departments, agencies, lands and regulations. Canada will be represented on the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment board, which has been mentioned and which will administer the assessment process in the Yukon.

As well, it should be made clear in regard to the process that would be put in place by Bill C-2, and the questions raised by the member for Davenport can be addressed again, that the legislation maintains the high standards Canadians have come to expect under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

It is my understanding that the new process will include all the improvements now being made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act under Bill C-9, which is now before the committee of the member for Davenport, and I assume, by the way, that if committees ever get working in the House in this session the member will be the Chair of it.

Another benefit of the single process that would be established by Bill C-2 is that it goes beyond the traditional realm of environmental assessment to also take into account the social and economic impacts of a proposed budget. That is what I have said, by the way: It is a true interpretation of what sustainable development means. One cannot consider the environment out of the context of economic and social considerations of the people of the region concerned. Regardless of how small or large a project may be, assessors will be required to consider how it will affect people's quality of life, their livelihoods and the heritage and culture of Yukon first nations people, as well as, naturally, because it is an environmental thing, the impacts on land, water, air, fish and wildlife.

The single development assessment process provided for in Bill C-2 is a first for Canada. I am hopeful that one day it will serve as a model for other regions, which is why I said that today we are not simply considering something that is important for only the people of Yukon.

I trust, as has been the case with the previous three speakers, that the bill will have the support of all members of the House, including, eventually, the Canadian Alliance.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate. I would like to start by complimenting and congratulating the member for Yukon and the member for Winnipeg Centre for their very exhaustive, comprehensive and thoughtful analyses of the bill.

I was particularly struck by the comment made by the member for Winnipeg Centre when said that this was the most culturally sensitive bill he had seen ever come into the House. Coming from an opposition party, this is quite a compliment being paid to the government and those who have helped in preparing the bill.

Also, the member for Winnipeg Centre referred to this bill as resulting from the most comprehensive consultations that have ever taken place. I would imagine that he speaks from experience and that his comments are very relevant.

Unfortunately, I cannot say very much about the intervention by the member for Portage--Lisgar who trotted a number of old chestnuts into the debate which were not really necessary in the context of Bill C-2. However, in explaining the reasons for his opposition to Bill C-2, he referred to the fact the bill would be a disincentive to potential developers. I do not see anything in the bill that can be interpreted as being a disincentive to a potential developer.

On the contrary, if one were to read, as several members have already done, the purpose and the aim of the bill as indicated on page 1 is “to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in the Yukon”. If that is not adequate enough to give the member for Portage--Lisgar sufficient assurance, then he probably would find that assurance by reading clause 5 of the bill where the purposes of the proposed act are outlined. Clause 5(2) is extremely well worded. It states:

(2) The purposes of this Act are

(a) to provide a comprehensive, neutrally conducted assessment process...

(b) to require that, before projects are undertaken, their environmental and socio-economic effects to be considered;

If I had any criticism for this particular clause, I would have it in paragraph 5(2)(e) where it seems to me that perhaps it could be phrased in a more positive way. It states:

(e) to ensure that projects are undertaken in accordance with principles that foster beneficial socio-economic change without undermining the ecological and social systems on which communities and their residents, and societies in general, depend;

When the bill comes to committee, I would recommend an alternative wording by way of an amendment which would say, instead of “without undermining” which is a bit negative and detracts, the words “while enhancing the ecological and social systems on which communities and their residents”. Enhancing is a positive approach and it fits much better into the general purpose of the bill as outlined by the short title.

However this is not the place perhaps to make suggestions for amendments to the bill and I am sure that the member for Yukon in his very committed way will look at every positive possibility to strengthen the bill.

I would only like to say that we have a Canadian Environment Assessment Act and the bill ought to be responsive and on the same wave length and have the same degree of application and strength as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Therefore, I would like to put on the record some questions, namely, how will the two laws, Bill C-2 when it is proclaimed, and the existing Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, plus the current Bill C-9, which is in the process of being referred to committee, integrate? How will they come together? Will they be implemented in the same way, as I hope they will? Are the two laws reinforcing each other? Are the interpretations of each of the definitions in clause 2 of the bill the same? In other words, are they going to be applied in the same manner?

For instance, will the words “significant impact” be interpreted in the same manner in both laws once they become operative? For instance, will “mitigative measures” have the same significance in both laws? Will the word “assessment” have the same definition? Will the word “environment” have the same definition? Will the word “project” also be defined in the same manner? I do find some comfort and assurance in clauses 63 and 64. At this stage one can only raise these as potential questions for examination in committee and leave it at that, because I am sure that after all these consultations the bill will be examined very thoroughly.

My task is coming to an end. I will conclude by quoting a letter I received from the Yukon Conservation Society today in which the text, signed by executive director Christine Cleghorn, reads as follows:

Since the signing of the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) in 1993, the Yukon Conservation Society has participated in and followed with keen interest the development of new environmental assessment legislation for the Yukon.

At the present time, [the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act] is scheduled for review by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development...Despite having undergone a second round of public review this spring, the draft legislation remains a convoluted, labyrinthine document. For a jurisdiction with only 30,000 people and environmental assessment trends indicating that over 85% of projects assessed each year are small projects, it is our view that YESEAA is unnecessarily complex to the point of absurdity. It seems that during the negotiations the original vision in Chapter 12 was lost to trying to create a piece of legislation that is basically a super version of The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We believe it would be beneficial for YESEAA to be heard by both of the above-noted Standing Committees.

These are, namely, the aboriginal affairs committee and the environment committee. This is not possible unless the House leader approves of that approach and I do not know whether this would be very productive and very helpful.

To conclude--

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-19 from the first session of this Parliament and it is in accordance with the special order of the House of October 7, 2002. Therefore, I request that it be reinstated at the same stage that it had reached at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)