Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was announced on October 6, is now at second reading.
This legislation includes three amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as announced by the minister on October 6. That announcement almost went unnoticed, since the paper on social program reform had been tabled the day before. The minister's decision to make the announcement on that day was obviously an attempt to create a diversion, given the controversy generated by the reform proposal tabled by her colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The method used by the minister can certainly not be called transparent and open. On that day, the minister announced a piece of legislation which was first developed in 1990 when our current leader, who was then Minister of the Environment, tabled Bill C-78 on the environmental assessment process. That legislation was reintroduced in May 1991 as Bill C-13. In December of the same year, a legislative committee made over 150 amendments to the original bill. Several provisions and clauses were deleted, reworded or added.
However, the flexibility which had characterized Bill C-78 had completely disappeared and been replaced by a very strict legislative intent. Moreover, one of these amendments, which affirms the federal government's intention to promote sustainable development, clearly indicates that the federal government considers itself the sole responsible for the renewal of resources, even though these fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Bill C-13 was passed by Parliament in June 1992. The long delay before the proclamation of the bill was due to the need to draft the regulations required to implement the act, and also to the desire of the current Minister of the Environment to introduce the amendments which we are now examining at second reading.
Following all these changes, it is clear that the current centralizing vision does not agree with the original legislation tabled by our leader when he was Minister of the Environment. In an article published in Le Devoir on April 1, 1992, Mr. Michel Yergeau, a prominent lawyer specializing in environmental law, reminded those who were trying to justify federal interference in fields of provincial jurisdiction by invoking the fact that the original legislation had been drafted under Mr. Bouchard's responsibility, that the then Minister of the Environment was very aware of the constitutional realities imposed by the nature of environmental problems.
Mr. Yergeau quoted part of a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition who stated that in the grey areas, where the Constitution does not clearly define the role of each of the stakeholders, we must have co-operation. He added that, at a time when we realize that the debate on the environment is the fight for life itself and that this fight must be taken up by the whole world, and not affect only our own jurisdictions, our constituents would not understand and even less tolerate a wrestling match between federal and provincial politicians.
Moreover, the spirit of the ruling by the Supreme Court in 1992, in the Oldman River case, essentially boiled down to respect for provincial jurisdictions. The Court ruled that the assessment process provided for by the order did not apply to projects undertaken pursuant to federal legislation, and I quote: "On the issue of the positive obligation to regulate, Mr. Justice LaForest indicated that it was not intended that the guidelines order be applied every time a project could have an environmental impact of an area of federal jurisdiction". He added: "The federal minister or the panel cannot use the guidelines order as a disguised tool to impinge on areas under provincial jurisdiction that have nothing to do with the relevant field of federal jurisdiction".
We must admit that all the amendments made to this legislation between the time it was first introduced and the time it was enacted changed completely the spirit of the reform proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in 1989. Bill C-78 was designed to harmonize the assessment processes and not to put under federal supervision the processes already in place in Quebec and in other provinces.
Despite these revealing statements on the true spirit and purpose of the original bill, the minister jumped on the opportunity to give credit to the Leader of the Official Opposition for this legislation. In fact, the minister always uses this defensive strategy when we ask questions regarding environmental matters that date back to the period when our leader was Minister of the Environment. Could it be that the minister is looking for a good example or even for a guide to help her run her department? If she continues to link everything she does to our leader, Canadians will wonder whether our leader is still running this department or whether he has simply become the minister's mentor.
But knowing the minister and her political ways, which are always of a partisan nature, we have to conclude that this is just a strategy to slow down the Official Opposition. She uses the alleged inaction of her predecessors to try and justify her own incompetence.
The minister obviously thinks that she just has to refer to our leader's past and we will buy everything she wants to sell us, but she is wrong. We will reject all of her proposals that do not respect the environment and we will protest against any infringement on the provinces' jurisdiction. Already, in 1992, the Bloc had expressed its strong opposition to Bill C-13 because it did not recognize the existence of a provincial environmental assessment process in Quebec. I also want to remind the minister that the Bloc Quebecois made a biting reply to the promulgation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
I also remind her that the government of Quebec reacted the same way. Mr. Jacques Brassard, provincial Minister of the Environment, even withdrew Quebec's representatives from federal-provincial discussions. The new Quebec environment minister described this new federal environmental assessment process as an arrogant attempt at displacing Quebec from that jurisdiction. He went on to say that this is precisely what business people were asking his government to avoid, that business executives think having two assessment processes will be a disaster for the Quebec economy.
The Quebec minister states that developers of all kinds will be faced with two processes having two different sets of requirements. He said: "It is clearly unacceptable to Quebec. It smacks of provocation, arrogance and lack of respect for Quebec".
As I already indicated, Quebec announced it was pulling out of discussions initiated by the federal government on environmental requirements harmonization because those discussions are a sham. The Quebec minister said: "They have gone too far. This bill is a deliberate act of provocation on the part of the federal government against the new sovereignist government in Quebec. It amounts to putting the province under a kind of guardianship".
The federal minister nonetheless proclaims a so-called new era of co-operation, but it is nothing but window dressing. It clearly demonstrates the centralist vision of the federal government. Certain provinces are used to justify the use of strong-arm tactics against other provinces. The federal government signs agreements with some provinces, Alberta and Manitoba in this case, indicates that negotiations are under way with five more provinces and, all of a sudden, introduces a bill.
The wall-to-wall theory is used. The Canada-wide approach is made to apply. National standards are implemented without any regard for what is already being done in some provinces or territories. The federal bulldozer starts rolling before discussions with the provinces are completed. That is precisely the attitude provinces reject and the public no longer accepts.
Unfortunately, ever since they came to office the Liberals have done nothing but centralize and encroach upon provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals still believe in a Canada that is the same from one end to the other, wrapped in the same red tapestry made from a book of the same colour on which the members opposite have fed abundantly during the last electoral campaign. However, as time passes, colour and direction are changing.
Take for example the last green, mauve and grey books that this government made public with great pomp. Their projects and propositions once more target ordinary Canadians and show this government's determination to encroach upon provincial jurisdiction.
This bill on environmental assessment is no exception to the rule of this overbearing and totalitarian federalism, as the former Liberal Environment Minister of Quebec, Mr. Pierre Paradis, called it. Coming from a convinced and orthodox federalist, from the same party as hon. members opposite, that says it all. May I remind you that Mr. Paradis came before the Senate to try to stop the passing of the bill introduced by then minister Charest, implementing the federal environmental assessment process. The minister said that Bill C-13 was trespassing dangerously on Quebec's preserves.
He also said that this bill would allow the federal government to encroach upon a provincial jurisdiction. He believed Ottawa could, from then on, intervene any time it wished to assess a Quebec project that could have an environmental impact.
This true federalist said that Bill C-13 would allow the use of every available lever to submit as many projects as possible to the federal assessment process and even to control all aspects of assessments done by another jurisdiction. He also said that the federal process would constantly interfere with Quebec procedure.
The person who said those things in 1992 was not a member of the P.Q. or the Bloc, not a separatist. He was a Grit, a Liberal, a federalist, just like the Minister of the Environment and the government.
On November 22, 1991, Mr. Paradis wrote to his old friend in Ottawa, minister Charest, the present member for Sherbrooke. He wrote: "Bill C-13, in its present form, far from clarifying the situation, allows for a useless encroachment of the federal assessment process on decisions which fall exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction, and this can only lead to a wasteful duplication of assessment processes and, inevitably, to numerous conflicts".
The federalist Quebec minister said he wished that Ottawa would recognize and respect the process used by the provinces to assess environmental impacts, something clearly under their jurisdiction.
It was not a P.Q. member who said that, that was not an evil separatist, it was a federalist who wanted the federal government to stay in Ottawa and look after its own affairs.
In another letter addressed to another minister of the Conservative government of the time-we should probably say of the era, since this party has virtually disappeared from the map-Minister Paradis wrote on December 17, 1990: "-the bill raises important constitutional questions and many implementation problems". He was saying clearly that the federal government had no business saying it had to protect the environment when trying to regulate areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
This legislation would mean that all Quebec projects would be submitted to a federal environmental assessment. Minister Paradis was concerned about wasteful and costly duplication and delays, since the federal process would be added on to the Quebec process.
Finally, in the March 17, 1994 issue of Le Journal de Montréal , federalist Quebec minister Pierre Paradis was quoted as saying on the question of environmental assessments: We have to harmonize the two legislations in order to have a single window, predominantly under Quebec control, for environmental assessment''. And he added:Quebec maintains that its jurisdiction must be protected and that it should be in charge''.
The minister was here on March 17, 1994. How could she ignore a Quebec federalist minister's request?
A lawyer, Michel Yergeau, was of the same opinion when he wrote the following in the April 1, 1992 issue of the daily Le Devoir : ``It is not because Ottawa has taken over a matter which demands a global approach and knows no boundaries that it can altogether disregard the Constitution. With Bill C-13, Ottawa
uses its authority and unilaterally settles matters in its favour, of course".
He then adds: "To justify such abruptness, Ottawa puts forward the pressing need to protect the environment in its areas of jurisdiction. The net result of this unilateral exercise is not and cannot be good. It must be reviewed and refined". I repeat: "It must be reviewed and refined".
The way things are at the present time, C-13 is just plain raw material the courts will have to refine on a case by case basis, which can only create a lot of resentment. In the long run, the whole exercise will be more time-consuming than sitting at the bargaining table to settle this issue once and for all. This is a real timebomb the federal government has planted in the Canadian legislation. This is also a further threat to the constitutional reconciliation the government yearns for. It is not even good for the environment.
This is a rather serious statement on the part of an environmental lawyer. It seems to me that the minister should take heed.
Mr. Yergeau says that Ottawa ignores the Constitution. He talks about the abruptness of the federal government. He thinks Ottawa is setting a time bomb in the Canadian legislation. The members opposite who believe in federalism should be very concerned by these statements. They should at least wonder about the impact their actions could have on the system they so implicitly believe in. It is totally illogical to in such a manner as to destroy a federal system you trust so much.
Of course, we in the Bloc feel that this suits our purpose. If you go on like this, there will come a time in 1995 when Quebecers will tell you: We see what you are after and you can just go back to Ottawa. From now on, we will do our own thing. This is just perfect. Carry on like you have been doing. All that is grist to our mill.
In an article published in Le Devoir on March 21, 1992, Lise Bissonnette said that the passage of the Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process was a kind of takeover. She indicated that Bill C-13 added to the Quebec-Canada problem that has yet to be solved, since it looks a lot like the Constitutional issue that it exacerbates while giving a lesson to Quebec. All the elements are there.
Lise Bissonnette compared Bill C-13 to an enormous machine that can assess absolutely everything, including the areas most obviously under provincial jurisdiction. She also said that the terms and conditions of future federal-provincial agreements would ensure that the provincial process is subject to the federal process, even though Ottawa only had a small say in this area.
More far-sighted, Ms. Bissonnette declared that Ottawa was giving itself the power to jeopardize Quebec's whole energy policy and thus its choices for economic development.
Finally, she concluded her article by saying that Ottawa, by giving itself such wide, preponderant power that could take many shapes and forms, would control not only the quality of life but also a large part of economic development.
Today, the minister and the federal government are faced with the clear consensus in Quebec against the CEAA. The Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois all expressed their strong opposition to this Act. But no matter what we do or say, the federal government will go ahead. Should we take comfort in realizing that such lack of understanding and respect leads to separation? As it did so many times in the past, the federal government leaves Quebec no choice. It is a take it or leave it situation. Quebecers will have to choose soon. That is what some people involved or interested in this issue said at the time.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I must stop here. Will I be allowed to continue later?