Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am prepared to agree with that if the House will then agree to put the question at that point.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if I could ask for further clarification. Are we only speaking about the 20-minute intervention or are we also including the 10-minute question or comment period? It is just the straight 20 minutes.

Members have heard the suggestion of the government whip. Is that agreeable to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake will have 20 minutes and I will put the question forthwith upon conclusion of his intervention.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to have achieved something extra to what I wished. I was suggesting that when the House sits next I would conclude my remarks. However I am quite prepared to do so now.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this very important bill. I have had a considerable amount of influence over the bill during the last four years. I am very much aware that the bill has been at least seven years in the making. When it was first proposed to the previous Parliament by the now leader of the Bloc Quebecois and then Minister of the Environment, I happened to be the New Democratic member responsible for environmental protection issues. Therefore I was asked by my party to sit in on discussions of Bill C-78 and to represent the New Democratic Party throughout the committee process on the piece of legislation.

I was quite taken by the responsibilities I was given at that time because the House will recall there was a great deal of criticism of Bill C-78.

The government began at that point a process that I think should be recommended for many other pieces of legislation. What began with Bill C-78 was something called a prestudy of the bill. In other words before the bill was introduced in the House the specific bill was presented to the parliamentary committee to have a look at it and allow for some intervention before the government actually introduced it and before the government would claim ownership of the wording of the bill.

The prestudy process gave us an opportunity to examine the bill without the partisan interventions that occur often when sides dig in on a debate and will not yield any ground. The prestudy phase of Bill C-78, short as it was, began the process of openness about the bill.

When Parliament of the time prorogued and the new Parliament began, the bill was reintroduced as Bill C-13. I had hoped at that point that with the prior work that had been done by the parliamentary committee Bill C-13 would have been amended by the government before being introduced into the new session. That not being the case, we were given an indication that the bill would be amended in committee with the approval of the government.

We began the process of amending the bill. Again something happened in committee that I am very proud to say I was a part of. I would commend it to the government and to future governments as a way of dealing with legislation in a very non-confrontational way. The government indicated that it was prepared to accept amendments from the committee and we proceeded to approach the bill with that understanding. I submitted over 110 amendments to the committee for study.

The point that I want to emphasize is that the committee chose to bring in legal experts to sit with us in the committee while we went through that amending process. Two environmental lawyers who had appeared as witnesses were brought in by the committee, Mr. Bill Andrews and Mr. Brian Pannell. They sat around the table and advised members of the committee about the legality and the practicality of amendments.

It was a great exercise and one from which the committee benefited a great deal. In fact the country benefited a great deal from it because Bill C-13 was amended with their assistance. As a result the bill that has now been proclaimed by the government is the bill we amended. The member for Davenport being a member of the committee at the time, myself and others worked very hard to find the best possible bill in the spirit of compromise that needed to exist to achieve that result.

The environment committee is presently doing a massive study of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I would commend the use of environmental legal experts when the committee sits down to conduct its final review of the act and write the report that must be written which may indeed result in some additions, changes or amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I believe the process of utilizing legal experts was of great benefit to us.

Now we are at the point where after a year of waiting we have Bill C-13 proclaimed, the agency about to be established, a new environmental assessment process about to begin, some new regulations in place that are going to guide us through some very important assessment work into the future, and a couple of

amendments before the House to allow us again the opportunity to have a look at the bill.

I will raise it in committee as well, but I believe the three amendments I support, the three amendments in front of us, are not sufficient to make the bill the important bill it could be.

I mention a couple of things in this regard. The first is with regard to intervener funding. We have raised it a number of times in the House today. The intervener funding process is absolutely crucial to the positive workings of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act itself.

In fact, as we are well aware, proponents of projects generally have access to the capital they need to see that project through to completion. They budget for the preparation of environmental assessment reports. They budget for the public hearings that may take place. They are prepared to deal with that. However, without adequate intervener funding there cannot be adequate assessment quite simply because those who wish to challenge the proponent do not have the same access to capital as the proponent does and budgets for.

It is very important that we set out a very specific intervener funding process to ensure that it is not only adequate but indeed meets all the criteria that we have established in the past for an intervener funding program that works positively. I commend the government for seeing the need to move forward with intervener funding in more specific terms like this. I hope that in the committee we will be able to broaden that out.

I also suggest that the committee have another look at the regulatory process while looking at the act and there is the opportunity to review it. The regulatory process is what provides for the workings of the environmental assessment. The act sets out the guidelines but without the regulations the act is not much. The regulations make it work. This is why we have noticed and recognized that the regulation making process itself has been so controversial, so complex and has involved so much time.

Members of cabinet, industry, and the environmental community have all had input into the regulation making process. However members of the House of Commons speaking for all Canadians have not had the opportunity to respond to the final product they have produced. Unlike the act where we can debate parts of it, we can go to committee and study parts of the act, in terms of the specific regulations members of Parliament in the House of Commons do not have the same opportunities to challenge parts of the regulatory process.

It is time we looked at an amendment I raised two years ago in this very Chamber. It was an amendment similar to a clause in the existing gun control legislation that allows for members of Parliament and members of the other place to call before committee certain regulations for scrutiny. We should have a similar clause in the legislation that would allow us to call certain pieces of regulatory decisions and discuss them in committee.

The process of ultimate cabinet responsibility should also be examined. Although I am supporting the amendment about cabinet responsibility at the moment, I do believe that at a time when governments are demonstrating they cannot be trusted-we had a government in this country for nine years that proved that-we have to ensure it is Parliament and the people of Canada in the end who have a full understanding and responsibility for matters like this.

When a panel makes a decision based on a tremendous amount of information, the government should be looking very seriously at the results of that panel hearing. When cabinet makes a final decision on a panel recommendation members of the cabinet can never have read that recommendation but have been influenced by many members of industry who perhaps have been speaking to them in another context but have made their wishes well known. The secrecy of the cabinet room should not be the final arbiter of public environmental process.

In any case I do recognize the accountability of government through the cabinet process. As I say I support the amendment before us, but it is important that perhaps the committee look at this process and see if there is not another way of dealing with this very important and specific issue.

I believe very strongly in the concept of environmental assessment. I heard the witnesses who appeared before the committees on Bill C-78 and Bill C-13. Witnesses from the corporate community indicated very strongly that they wanted to see an environmental assessment process that was up front and took the issues on early and did not come at them after the fact.

The court rulings that have been made across the country have indicated clearly that the guidelines that existed and continue to exist until Bill C-13 was proclaimed were inadequate to meet the needs of the country. Therefore Bill C-13 although it is not the one I would have written had I been the Minister of the Environment is very much a bill that moves us forward. Certainly the amendments in front of us do that as well.

We have the opportunity to move this process forward a great deal further than the three amendments do. I hope the committee which will receive this bill at the will of the House at the end of my remarks tonight will look seriously at taking the bill a little further than the government is prepared to move at this point in time.

I appreciate the co-operation of the House in allowing me to finish my remarks. In that spirit of co-operation and compromise I will not abuse the time of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

On behalf of all our colleagues, I thank the member for his co-operation.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the divison bells having stopped:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45 the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 6 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he would urge the Prime Minister on his visit to Beijing to raise with Chinese authorities the need to end nuclear testing for the sake of planetary security.

The non-proliferation treaty, or NPT, was signed in 1968 by approximately 160 nations. As part of this treaty countries with nuclear weapons have agreed to work toward the reduction of their nuclear arsenals and to work toward a comprehensive test ban treaty. Developing countries agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for information regarding peaceful uses of nuclear power.

However since 1964, Britain has carried out some 44; France, 210; and the United States more than 1,000 nuclear tests. During the last few years testing has virtually been suspended. Since 1991 Russia has not tested any weapons nor has the United States. Britain has not undertaken any testing in recent years either. All major countries have put in place voluntary moratoria.

Two weeks ago the Government of China carried out its 41st test. Therefore in addition to my earlier question to the Prime Minister, tonight I am asking the minister of external affairs whether he will personally take an interest in the negotiations of the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which will run out in 1995.

Will Canada play a leadership role at the United Nations? Will Canada on behalf of all Canadians press the UN for a new treaty? Will that new treaty, first, ban the use of all nuclear weapons and weapons tests, and second, provide for better enforcement powers to the International Atomic Energy Agency so that better comprehensive monitoring of compliance can be carried out on behalf of the world community?

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in continuing to conduct nuclear tests China is breaking the tacit moratorium which has been observed by all nuclear weapon states. China has said it will participate in comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations. Nonetheless continued testing by China draws into question its commitment to the early completion of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations.

I would like to remind the hon. member it is true that on October 7, 1994 the People's Republic of China conducted its third underground nuclear test since the start of the CTBT negotiations.

Although Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation of the United States, have all instituted national testing moratoria, China has refused to stop testing, arguing that it needs further tests to catch up technologically with other nuclear weapon states.

What Canada has done is encourage the People's Republic of China to engage in responsible, international behaviour with respect to arms sales and nuclear proliferation. To this end we have pressured China to end its testing program. Following the second test, our ambassador at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva made a strong public appeal and, as members know, following the last test the Chinese ambassador was called in by

the Minister of Foreign Affairs and was apprised in no uncertain terms of Canada's condemnation of continued nuclear testing.

The Prime Minister, who will be heading off to China very shortly, has been fully briefed on these matters and intends to raise them with the highest levels of the Chinese leadership.

Canada's relationship with China on non-proliferation matters are complex. In some areas, like the cut-off and NPT extension, there is near-term potential for productive co-operation. On others like testing we will continue to press China to do the right thing and to join the other nations in banning nuclear testing once and for all.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.29 p.m.)