Debates of Dec. 12th, 1994

The House resumed, from December 9, consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read the third time and passed.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-56, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in three important ways. I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill.

It is indeed impossible for us to support a bill to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, an act that we disagree with in the first place. We consider that this act is an unacceptable federal assault on a field of jurisdiction that is already occupied forcefully and effectively by certain provinces. Quebec, for instance, has its own environmental assessment process, which has proven itself.

Before going any further, I would like to take a moment to say a few words on the political strategy used by the Minister of the Environment, who is bent on associating the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act with our leader. We know that he is the one who originally initiated Bill C-78 in 1990, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. The early bill has changed considerably, with the hundreds of amendments made by a legislative committee.

Many provisions and clauses have been deleted, rewritten or added. The flexibility our leader was looking for in Bill C-78, that became Bill C-13 in 1991, has disappeared and been replaced with rigidity in the legislative intent. Moreover, among the changes made, the statement to the effect that the federal government promotes sustainable development is a clear indication that it considers itself the sole authority for the renewal of resources, even though resources fall under provincial jurisdiction.

In light of all these changes, it is clear that the current centralizing vision of the Liberals is not in keeping with the original bill proposed by Mr. Bouchard. In an article that appeared in the April 1, 1992 edition of Le Devoir , Michel Yergeau, a well-known lawyer specializing in environmental law, reminded those who tried to justify federal intrusions in areas of provincial jurisdiction by invoking the fact that the first version of the reform was overseen by Mr. Bouchard, that Mr. Bouchard was well aware of the constitutional realities imposed by the nature of environmental problems.

Mr. Yergeau even repeated something that Mr. Bouchard said in one of his speeches: "In grey areas where the Constitution does not set out clearly the role of each government, co-operation must prevail". As we come to realize that the environmental debate and the fight for life itself must take place all over the globe as well as in every area of activity, our fellow citizens would not understand, much less tolerate wrestling matches between federal and provincial politicians.

Last Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment told us that the federal government had already participated in many environmental assessments in Quebec. I must remind him that these assessments were carried out under the federal guidelines order providing for flexibility and co-operation between the two levels of government, something which Bill C-13 no longer allows.

Let me remind you of the Oldman River Dam case on which the Supreme Court ruled on January 23, 1992. The spirit of this ruling was one of respect for provincial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the assessment process outlined in the guidelines order applies only to projects for which the Government of Canada has an "affirmative regulatory duty" pursuant to an act of Parliament.

Mr. Justice LaForest said, "It cannot have been intended that the guidelines order would be invoked every time there is some potential environmental effect on a matter of federal jurisdiction". He went on to say that the federal minister or the panel could not use the guidelines order as an excuse to invade-repeat, invade-areas of provincial jurisdiction unrelated to the area of federal jurisdiction involved.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act promulgated on October 6 is far removed from the Guidelines Order of June 1984 and Bill C-78. There used to be some flexibility and respect for provincial jurisdiction, but the new federal legislative and regulatory framework is more forceful and extends tentacles in every direction.

The CEEA has a major impact on the application in Quebec of Quebec's environmental assessment procedure. Clearly, there is a risk that this Quebec law and surely other provinces' environmental legislation will be constantly duplicated, challenged or subordinated to the federal process. Nevertheless, Quebec's procedure has been well established for ten years already, is well known to the public and developers and has proven itself.

In light of all the above, it is very clear that the minister's always associating our leader with Bill C-13 has no serious basis and may be due to some unadmitted desire to cast herself in the image of our leader when he was environment minister. But I think that the minister, as is her wont, is playing petty politics and using the only weapons she has, demagogy and partisanship.

To convince you of these unfortunate inclinations of the minister, I will show you that despite her praise and flattering remarks about our leader for his initial bill, Bill C-78, the minister voted against reinstating this bill on May 29, 1991 in this House.

Has the minister forgotten her vote against reinstating Bill C-78, which died on the Order Paper on May 12, 1991? All her Liberal colleagues also voted against reinstating it.

On May 29, 1991, the minister said that Bill C-78 should be thrown out. Today, she praises our leader for this same bill. I call that double talk. The minister is being flagrantly inconsistent. As always, she confuses the environment with partisan politics.

The minister's approach and behaviour are starting to give environmental groups and some provinces serious concerns. There is growing doubt about the Deputy Prime Minister's ability to run this important Department of the Environment well. Many people have told us that the minister does not know her issues and that her intransigent attitude is not at all appreciated. This situation is very disturbing and does not inspire confidence in the community.

A specific incident showing the minister's ignorance occurred on November 10 when she was in Charlottetown. The minister, who was there to meet the people and reassure them about the raising of the Irving Whale , took the opportunity to say that she was very poor in science in school. This incident was reported in Le Radar , a Magdalen Islands newspaper, for the week of November 18 to 24, 1994.

Here is an excerpt from this article signed by Achille Hubert: "In fact, the minister showed her abysmal ignorance when she was interviewed by Lyne Danis, a Radio-Canada journalist. When asked how the refloating operation was going to be conducted, the environment minister floundered. She thought the booms would be at the bottom of the water. As for the ship which will support the barge once it reaches the surface, she also thought that it would be at the bottom".

After listening to the option chosen to refloat that barge, I say that the minister has no idea of what is involved: She does not even have any sense of what this delicate operation entails. She showed her total ignorance of science, and I hope that the environment will not suffer more from her incompetence. Otherwise, it would not look very reassuring for the future.

I urge the minister to take a very close look at the issues which are under her responsibility, and to stop justifying her own inability by claiming that her predecessors were passive.

I want to go back for a moment to Bill C-78, which preceded Bill C-13, and remind you of what some members of this Liberal government were saying then, when they formed the opposition. At the time, the current Liberal member for Winnipeg North Centre said: "We want to make sure that the powers involved are sufficiently explicit to allow for the establishment of environmental rules capable of sustaining the pressure exerted by the provinces. With this legislation, the government does not succeed in at least protecting Canadians against the ambition of the federal and provincial governments. We have let people down in so many ways that if we were to do it once again, this would be the most infamous action ever taken by Parliament".

This is what the Liberal member for Winnipeg North Centre thought of that bill. It was not good yesterday, but it is just fine today.

The Liberal member for Eglinton-Lawrence, who is still here today, said this on October 22, 1990, and I quote: "This is legislation without teeth. It is, in fact, legislation without teeth. The key word was `redraft' and not make amendments that are going to provide acceptable frills to this bill, but to alter completely the dimension of this bill. One of those items refers to the fact that the compliance component of the bill certainly is way lacking. There is absolute indifference to the concept of making various jurisdictions of government comply, particularly when they set up their own review mechanism".

The Liberal member for Egmont, in Prince Edward Island, said and I quote: "Bill C-78 does not satisfy the legislative requirements necessary to protect our environment. In view of the importance and the urgency of environmental impact legislation, we cannot be satisfied with an imprecise, toothless piece of legislation such as the bill presently before us. This bill does

not meet the expectations of the people of Canada. It does not measure up to the expectations of its own appointed environment and economy committee. It is so seriously flawed that it should be withdrawn and redrafted".

As for the Liberal member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, he said: "We should reconsider many basic aspects of this measure. I think that to be fair, it is somewhat short of perfection".

The Liberal member for Nepean added the following: "Unfortunately, the weakness of the legislation before us makes for a skeptical public and questions the motives of us as legislators and the seriousness of the government's intent in enacting this resolution".

The present Secretary of State for Latin America and Liberal member for Northumberland mentioned: "Mr. Mulroney's government's latest environmental legislation is fundamentally flawed. Canada will return to the dark ages of environmental law if Bill C-78 passes in its present form".

Other Liberal members, who are now heavyweights in the Liberal government, also spoke against Bill C-78 at the time. The present Minister of Industry said in the House: "The heritage of Canadians is too important to be left only to the provinces. Yet I do not see even a wish on the part of the federal government to acknowledge that it has the power to intervene in development projects which are going to be environmentally harmful. In many regards, this bill is not an appropriate answer to the numerous events happening in Canada".

This very enlightening statement by the minister shows the vision of the provinces the people opposite have. With this vision as a basis, no need to look very far to see why Liberals so cheerfully promote a centralizing kind of federalism that tends to crush and dominate the provinces.

The Minister of Industry, a fervent supporter of centralizing federalism, was not the only one to attack Bill C-78 at that time. His Cabinet colleague, the minister of social program reductions, mentioned that his colleagues and his party had brilliantly pointed out the flaws of this bill. The legislation was no good, he said. At the time, the minister of unemployment cuts said that he hoped we would one day have a government that would know how to negotiate a new agreement so that federal and provincial authorities would share responsibilities for such projects.

The minister of cuts then said that we should use our imagination to find a way to share the responsibility for environmental assessments. What a nice wish for the minister to express! Unfortunately, his wish did not come true, since his Minister of Environment, in her bill and her regulations, decided not to share this responsibility with the provinces and respect what the provincial governments are already doing, but rather to intrude by imposing her own assessment process.

I also find it rather funny to see that, back then, the minister of education cuts wanted to share responsibilities with the provinces, given his action today, his reform proposal and the negative reactions he has got so far from the provinces.

Finally, the prize for best decrying goes to our dear Minister of Finance, the minister of fake Canada-wide consultations. On May 29, 1991, he said in this House and I quote: "Bill C-78 is so flawed it will in fact undermine our existing standards for environmental assessment". He added: "My feeling is that if we have to go with Bill C-78 or none, go with none".

Here we have yet another minister who wanted to scrap Bill C-78. When you read all the speech he made on May 29, 1991, it becomes crystal-clear that the minister of consultation wanted more powers for Ottawa. Besides, nowhere in his speech did he mention the provinces and their jurisdiction. This speaks volumes about the domineering intentions of people across the floor.

This is what some Liberal members were saying when they were on this side of the House. What is so inconsistent and indecent in the Liberal position on Bill C-78 is that at the time they criticized the bill and the minister, our leader, who introduced it but today they commend him for having initiated the process.

The Liberals, headed by the Minister of Environment, now shower praise on our leader but then they hurled the pot at him. You are opportunists who change their minds with the weather. This opportunistic change of opinion unequivocally confirms that Bill C-78 has been so deeply amended that it has nothing to do any more with the purpose it was intended to fill at the time. Liberals themselves make this abundantly clear. If Liberals, in their minds, consider today's Bill C-13 as the equivalent of the then Bill C-78, the latter has to have been significantly changed to be approved today by the Liberals.

This confirms our claims that the act the minister proclaimed on October 6, 1994, is totally different from the one that was initiated at the time. The bill she has introduced today and the act it amends are unacceptable. The minister is predicting a new so-called era of co-operation but this is only to impress everyone. Far from bearing the stamp of co-operation, this new era will be one of centralization and domination by the Liberals.

The Canadian government forces this process upon us without looking at what is already being done in the provinces and it justifies the whole thing with a single bilateral agreement with Alberta. This is sufficient for the minister. This single agreement gives her the green light to impose her way on all other provinces.

Again, the Canadian government is laying down the law coast to coast. Canada is homogeneous, so, for the Liberals, what is signed or accepted by one province is good for all the others. What bad, simplistic reasoning.

We in the Bloc Quebecois do not accept that kind of standardization from sea to sea. We oppose Bill C-56 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and we are not the only ones. The federal assessment process infringes on provincial jurisdiction and powers. Not only will it create duplication and disputes, but it will also subordinate provincial processes already in place.

Quebec opposes and has always opposed that federal assessment process. Since 1990, Quebec has regularly made representations on this to the federal government. Before, it was through Pierre Paradis, the former Minister of the Environment, a federalist Liberal, like the people opposite, and now, it is through Jacques Brassard, a member of the separatist Parti Quebecois, the present Minister of the Environment. Despite their conflicting political positions, those two men denounced federal interference in environmental assessment.

Pierre Paradis, the former minister and a true hard-line federalist, said that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was no exception to that dominating and totalitarian federalism. Coming from a federalist, that says a lot. He said that he saw Bill C-13 as dangerous interference in Quebec's affairs by the federal government. He added that Ottawa would then be in a position to impose its assessment on any Quebec project having an environmental impact. This hard core federalist said, and I quote: "With Bill C-13, the federal government is seeking to use all available means to subject the largest possible number of projects to the federal assessment process and even to control every aspect of the assessment when it is carried out by other authorities. The federal process will interfere constantly with the provincial process".

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment should understand these comments by his former provincial colleague. Moreover, as former Minister of the Environment in the National Assembly, the parliamentary secretary should pass on Quebec's message to his minister. Was he or was he not a member of the same government as Mr. Paradis?

On November 22, 1991, Mr. Paradis wrote to the minister, Jean Charest, who was luckier than his Conservative colleagues since he is still with us today. The letter said: "Far from clarifying the situation, Bill C-13 in its present form allows the federal assessment process to unnecessarily interfere with decisions which are exclusively Quebec's responsibility. This will create unproductive duplication of assessment procedures and will inevitably lead to numerous disputes".

Quebec's federalist minister said that he wished Ottawa would recognize and respect the assessment process put in place by the provinces. It seems to me that the message is clear. Mr. Paradis told the federal government to mind its own business.

All the letters, dozens of them, sent by this hard core federalist to the federal minister since 1990 contained the same messages. Let me read you a few of them. The minister was concerned that the bill would create "major constitutional problems and numerous difficulties in terms of implementation". On another occasion he said "that the federal government was not justified in using the protection of the environment as an excuse to interfere in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction". He also said that, to Quebec, this legislation meant that every environmental project would be subject to a federal assessment. He was concerned that adding the federal process to the provincial process would only create costly duplication and delays.

Finally, here is what Mr. Paradis was quoted as saying in the Journal de Montréal on March 17, 1994: We have to harmonize the federal and provincial legislation so as to establish a single window in the area of environmental assessment, Quebec having priority over Ottawa''. And he added that:Quebec maintains its objective of having its jurisdictions protected, of being in charge''. The current Liberal minister was there, on March 17, 1994. Why did she not hear and take into consideration the claims made by a federalist Quebec minister who had been strongly opposed to that legislation since 1990?

The new Quebec environment minister, Jacques Brassard, reacted scathingly to the promulgation of the Canadian act. Mr. Brassard recalled the Quebec representatives from the federal-provincial talks and did not show up himself at the environment ministers' conference in Bathurst, in early November. He said that discussions between the two levels of government on harmonizing environmental measures following the promulgation of the federal act were a farce, and said: "We are tired of being laughed at".

For Quebec, this legislation means being under trusteeship. Mr. Brassard put it even more bluntly: "This is utterly unacceptable to Quebec. This is provocation, a demonstration of arrogance and disregard for Quebec". With this federal legislation, developers in Quebec and in other provinces will be faced with two assessment processes with different requirements. In Quebec, businesses object to this dual assessment which will have a disastrous impact on the economy. Obviously, businesses will be reluctant to submit their projects, because they will not know what to expect from the environmental assessments.

Why do federal Liberals intrude with such arrogance in this area of provincial jurisdiction? They are federalists who, deep down, believe in a strong central government. They think that

Ottawa is where it is at and that the federal government should have an overriding role. What else could we expect from them?

These people take the "think globally" approach in order to justify their excessive centralization. Members opposite hold the mistaken position that, because water and air know no boundaries, their preservation should be the responsibility of a big national machine. Who knows, with that kind of thinking, they may one day submit to a larger organization or even a world organization. Why not?

Again I quote Michel Yergeau, from Le Devoir of April 1, 1992: `The fact that Ottawa has found something called aglobal' approach that ignores boundaries is not reason enough to shrug off the Constitution. By passing Bill-13, the federal government makes an autocratic argument and unilaterally settles the dispute, necessarily in its favour''.

That environmental law specialist had more sound remarks which graphically illustrate the problems the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will bring. Here is what he says: "In order to justify that brutal approach, the federal government cloaks itself in the urgent necessity to preserve the environment in its own jurisdiction. The net results of that unilateral exercise are not good, nor can they be. It should be reconsidered and refined. As it now stands, Bill C-13 is a rough draft which will have to be refined by the courts on a case by case basis and which will only be a source of dissatisfaction for everybody. Ultimately, the process will take more time than if we had negotiated this issue. On second thought, the federal government has just set a time bomb in Canadian legislation. It is also a further threat to the constitutional reconciliation so dear to the federal government. And it is of no benefit for the environment either." End of this very enlightening quotation.

Please note Mr. Yergeau's last sentence. "And it is of no benefit for the environment either". You see, Mr. Speaker, the environment is an issue which must be dealt with in the field, at the community level. But we all know that federal centralism is not attuned to what happens at the community level.

Centralized structures are generally and often quite far from concrete problems and day to day situations. The environment needs efficiency: quick analyses, prompt actions and decisions as well as good relations between developers, decision makers and the community.

However, the minister's proposal is the complete opposite. Her process is slow, complicated, cumbersome and creates duplication. The environmental and economic repercussions will be very important, according to many experts.

In the first federal assessments, we will see how developers react and what effect the federal process will have on their decisions to submit projects. I am sure that they will not like being subjected to two environmental assessment processes. The federal government's interference in environmental assessment will create uncertainty and hesitation. It is deplorable that the minister does not seem to pay any attention at all to the impact her law will have on projects.

In December 1993, Quebec's aluminium industry association submitted the following statement to the Quebec minister of the environment and wildlife: "Section 5(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act sets conditions for the environmental assessment procedures even though these projects could already have been covered by a provincial process. . . We fear that duplication. . .will make the process more cumbersome without protecting the environment any better. This duplication will entail more costs and delays. . .developers will pay for this duplication and could very well decide to abandon economically beneficial projects".

Is that message not clear enough for the federal minister? The environment and the economy will be affected by the federal process.

Also, last January, the Centre patronal de l'environnement wrote to the federal government and said they believed it would be very difficult for the federal government to justify the implementation of a law that would unduly overlap provincial jurisdiction. With all the budgetary restraints, the federal government would be better off working in close co-operation with the provinces and sharing the fiscal burden, especially for this type of assessment where the costs and resources allocated will be considerable.

The Canadian Electrical Association expressed the same opinion in a brief submitted to the subcommittee which recently reviewed Bill C-56. I would like to quote three very revealing parts of that brief.

The first says:

"The CEAA, the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, contains serious shortcomings which are not addressed by Bill C-56. The bill before the subcommittee deals with red book commitments but does not look at issues such as jurisdiction and proponents' rights. We see the CEAA as an unwitting and unnecessary federal intrusion into jurisdictional controversy and as leading to more, not less, duplication. Harmonization agreements with the provinces will not resolve these fundamental flaws".

The second one is, and I quote:

"Canadian Electrical Association's objective is to ensure that the CEAA operates effectively and efficiently while providing the degree of certainty required for project proponents and operators. The act, even as amended by Bill C-56, and guided by the regulations published recently in the Canada Gazette , Part II, does not indicate that the environmental assessment process that will emerge will be workable''.

And the last one is as follows:

"The intent of the act is not to ensure that economic activity in resource sectors stops, but that the environmental acceptability of projects be examined in a timely and appropriate manner to determine if they should proceed. The consequence of not having a workable process is that investments in projects will dry up. The Fisheries Act requires special attention because including this act as a trigger under CEAA could create uncertainty for already licensed operating facilities".

Despite its rhetoric on the federation being so efficient, the federal government is itself increasing the overlap and duplication which add to the administrative costs for governments and developers. In the name of federalism and a global approach, the government forces its way by imposing its process on us, which will create problems and lead to unacceptable costs. In the long run, clearly it will not be good for the environment and it will hurt the economy.

It is unfortunate that the federal government is once again acting unilaterally and treating the provinces, the developers, taxpayers and, of course, the environment with such disrespect.

We are all in favour of environmental assessment, but we are also in favour of showing respect for the processes already in place in the provinces. It is absolutely false to pretend that the federal government must make its presence felt for the sake of the environment. Quebec was a forerunner in the area of environmental assessments in Canada and has shown exemplary consistency and thoroughness.

The federal approach is even more unacceptable when you think that the Quebec process is recognized as one of the best of its kind. It is credible, well established and has proven its effectiveness. Since 1980, 745 projects have been submitted. Two hundred and ninety projects are presently at different stages in the process and some 25 major projects are completed every year.

What more do you want? Why is the federal government getting involved in this? Why do they want to duplicate the whole process that already exists in Quebec and elsewhere?

The federal minister believes that these problems, whether current or anticipated, will be settled by signing bilateral agreements with the provinces. Fine, but what will happen in the case of provinces with which she will not be able to strike a bilateral agreement? Has the minister considered this? Does she have an alternative for provinces which will not tolerate this intrusion by the federal government? The minister is speechless on this issue and has no answer. What matters for her is that the federal government makes the move, regardless of what the provinces want.

Since the beginning of my speech, I have often referred to the duplication of the assessment process due to federal interference in that field. Yet, the Liberals have been telling us since October 25, 1993 that they want to eliminate this unnecessary and costly duplication. The people opposite are quite far from delivering on their fine promises. Their actions and decisions are totally contrary to what they say.

But, besides duplicating what is already being done in the provinces, the Liberals cannot even clean up their own backyard. Let us take a serious look at clause 1 of Bill C-56. In its first version, that clause said: "to ensure that responsible authorities carry out their responsibilities in a co-ordinated and efficient manner with a view to eliminating unnecessary duplication in the environmental assessment process". Hence, we could think that the federal government, even though it is duplicating provincial processes, wanted to avoid any duplication deep down.

However, a motion put by the Liberals in sub-committee changed that clause. That motion included the words "to the extent possible" in the clause. The new clause reads as follows: "to ensure that responsible authorities carry out their responsibilities in a coordinated and efficient manner with a view to eliminate, to the extent possible, unnecessary duplication in the environmental assessment process"; To the extent possible, what nonsense and how ironic. Not only does the federal government duplicate provincial processes, but it also opens the door to duplication in its own operations.

I will conclude by saying that, eventually, the taxpayers will once again pay the price for that bad decision made by the federal government. They will pay twice because their environment, as well as the economy, will be affected.

What a mess the federal Liberals are making. How far will they go to satisfy their thirst for centralized power in Ottawa?

We will vote against this bill.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the hon. member for Laurentides. I noticed that in her speech she took a shot at our present Minister of the Environment on her handling of the Irving Whale .

This is a very peculiar criticism because the present minister is the only minister in over two decades who has taken any action at all on the Irving Whale. She met with the fishermen and residents of Prince Edward Island and Îles-de-la-Madeleine .She met with scientists and found the money to remove the hazard from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Yet she is under criticism because she is actually doing something about this environmental hazard.

I am curious to know what the hon. member would do. Would she remove the Irving Whale ? Would she pump it out? Would she leave it there? What would she do? She seems to have become involved in this project only after the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine got some publicity on it. If the minister is not doing a good job on this particular issue, I am curious to know what the member would do in her position.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Egmont may not have been aware of the fact that at this stage of debate on the bill the first three speakers may speak for 40 minutes without question or comment afterward. The Chair is therefore obliged to take the member for Egmont's question and comment as an intervention and not as a question or comment.

Does the member for Egmont wish to split his time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening as usual to my colleague from Laurentides who was speaking as usual about duplication and overlapping. I do not know what she would do if these words were not in her vocabulary.

During her speech, she asked quite a surprising question when she wanted to know what the federal government was doing in this. I wonder, at times, if we are living on the same planet. She also talked about centralizing federalism. In the most decentralized federal state in the world, perhaps she should have a little talk with the German minister of the environment or with the director of the American EPA and learn about how things are done in federal states.

In fact, as I said the other day, perhaps we will have to remind her once again that the Supreme Court said that the federal government not only has the right to intervene in the environment and in environmental assessments, but also has a strict duty to do so for all Canadians. I will remind her once again that the federal government is responsible for navigable waters, for all navigable waters whether they are in Quebec, New Brunswick or British Columbia.

It is responsible for fisheries throughout the territory and for all coastal areas, whether in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, British Columbia or the Arctic. All federal lands and all federal buildings in Canada are under federal jurisdiction.

The federal government also has a fiduciary responsibility for native peoples and thus for all the lands where native people live and have rights. It is responsible for the national harbours and ports, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway, interprovincial and international trade and international agreements.

What is so unusual for a government with national responsibilities to pass a law on environmental assessments for whatever comes under its jurisdiction?

In fact, this law was written when the opposition leader was Minister of the Environment and now, people will try anything to demonstrate that it is different. But basically the law is exactly the same as it was initially.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

That is not true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Laurentides had to say. I would ask her to at least have the courtesy to remain silent for the time being and let me speak.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

It is untrue.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

It is untrue.

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

In any case, the principle of this bill is identical to that of the previous bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition.

In fact, in September 1994, only two months ago, in an interview with the Gazette , the Leader of the Opposition referred to this legislation as his baby''. During the 1993 election campaign, he made a reference to the legislation in an interview on <em>Le Point</em> , when he said:We must support this legislation''. I remember several instances during his previous and present mandate when he supported the principle of this bill.

One can use quotes to prove anything, but perhaps we should also quote what was said by the people of the Quebec centre of environmental law who say this legislation is entirely legiti-

mate. Perhaps we should also quote lawyers Michel Bélanger and Franklin Gurter, and see what they have to say. Lawyers do not all think alike.

But the crucial point is that today, yesterday and the day before, there have been assessments in areas of joint jurisdiction. I explained this to the hon. member for Laurentides the other day. I mentioned several cases: the Port of Cacouna, the Lachine Canal, the Sainte-Marguerite River. Today, she stressed this would be impossible under the present legislation. Prove it! In fact, the legislation has an active provision that allows for administrative agreements with all the provinces, individual agreements under which this kind of joint assessment can be done in an entirely normal and active way. So there is nothing in this legislation to discourage the kind of joint assessment that was done in the past.

The government has no intention of interfering with provincial environmental assessments. She talks about the BAPE as though the BAPE in Quebec were going to disappear. She talked about Quebec's environmental assessment process as though it would cease to exist. Of course it will continue, as will everything else, the same way as in the past. Except that today, in accordance with a formal commitment we made during the election campaign, in the red book, we decided to proclaim this legislation which was initially introduced several years ago and then put on the back burner for a number of years, for no good reason. So at least we had the courage to proclaim it. From now on, all environmental assessments will have to be done on a co-operative basis.

I think the minister made that quite clear. She got in touch with her counterparts, both Mr. Paradis and Mr. Brassard, to explain that the federal government did not intend to encroach on the provincial government's exclusive jurisdiction, but nevertheless, it has certain rights and duties, as ruled by the Supreme Court, that must be respected and that include doing environmental assessments where necessary. I do not see that as an encroachment by centralist federalism and all those big words the hon. member for Laurentides mentioned with such resentment.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

I see this bothers the members of the Bloc. We show them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say, but they never show us the slightest courtesy. All they can do is shout.

That did not prevent me from saying what I think, that is that there are two sides to a coin. You, of course, would like Canada to break up. How could the Bloc Quebecois, the members of the Bloc, possibly accept a federal piece of legislation? Surely it is unthinkable. Indeed, the member for Laurentides showed her bitterness by saying how abysmally ignorant the current minister was on the issue. Speaking about the Irwing Whale , she invited the minister ``to take a very close look at the matter.'' What nerve.

In fact, as my colleague said, the current Minister of the Environment was the first one-I think there were six before her, including the Leader of the Opposition who was responsible for the matter for two years and did nothing despite all the mail he received-to take action less than three months after she got the environment portfolio. Now the member for Laurentides who is new to these matters has the nerve to say that the minister is abysmally ignorant.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The parliamentary secretary's time is up. There are five minutes left for questions and comments. The member for Laurentides.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the truth is hard to take. The member made a speech and did not even explain his bill. He simply attacked us while I described specific problems that Bill C-56 would create with the provinces. And he is perfectly aware of them.

Also, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, having himself been a provincial minister of the environment, knows all about the BAPE. He knows perfectly well how it works and should have advised the minister since he knew that the BAPE was managing perfectly well in Quebec. We did not need this federal overlap on environmental reviews. To me the member has just proven that he is totally blinded by his own partisanship and his centralizing idea of federalism.

As for the Irving Whale , I was quoting a newspaper when I spoke about it a moment ago. I did not make this up. It was written by journalists who felt very badly served by the Minister of the Environment who did not know the facts at all. So if members opposite will not take some criticism and go back and do their homework, this government has a problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that it is taking measures that the hon. member's leader did not take for two years with respect to the Irving Whale . Ask your leader, when he comes back, what he did about the Irving Whale .

I am not talking about Mr. Bouchard as an individual but as the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to ask the hon. member who is criticizing the minister if the Leader of the Opposition, while he was Minister of the Environment and after receiving numerous letters, did anything about the Irving Whale when he was responsible for the matter? And you have the gall to criticize the minister who, after only three months, did something about it!

As for the BAPE, I ask the hon. member to prove to the House that the BAPE will disappear, that its operations will change from what they are now. Indeed, I am in a good position to know the BAPE because I established the Lacoste Committee on the BAPE in Quebec. I know the BAPE inside out. You will have to

show me how the BAPE will differ from what it is today and why it will make fewer evaluations.

The BAPE will continue to operate in exactly the same way. What we want to do with the act is to maintain what is already provided for in the federal guidelines. Nothing will change except that there will be an act instead of guidelines. That is all. The federal government has very clear jurisdiction, as I explained, and that is why we are doing this.

How could the PQ and Bloc members, who want to destroy this country, agree with a federal piece of legislation? Of course you will not support a federal law! Name one other province, only one that refuses Bill C-13 today. Name only one. If you can, I will support you.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to ask members to direct their observations to the Chair for reasons which have been explained at least a hundred times before. There is about a minute left, and we will use it for questions or comments. I recognize the hon. member for Frontenac and I ask him to be brief.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Of course, Mr. Speaker. There is a potential ecological problem which goes back almost 25 years. I would like to remind the former Quebec minister, who had the environment portfolio at the time, that when the Irving Whale sank, she was in so-called international waters. The Liberal Party, under Mr. Trudeau, extended our jurisdiction to 100 nautical miles and thereby assumed responsibility for the wreck.

True, the minister reacted positively three months after she took over as Minister of the Environment. However, what the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis does not say is that from 1970 to 1994, except for nine years of Conservative government and nine months under former Prime Minister Joe Clark, the environment portfolio was continuously held by the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that deserves an answer. I believe that the actions of the minister speak for themselves. She is the first to take concrete measures and the first to have the courage to act on this. The actions speak for themselves, we do not need any other kind of answer.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate. I recognize the hon. member for Terrebonne. According to my list, the hon. member for Terrebonne should be the next to speak, but if he is not here, we could go on to the next speaker.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I might be able to explain why the hon. member for Terrebonne is late. I also just got in. I had to take Boulevard Métropolitain in Montreal, and you know how it is. This morning there was a stalled bus, a bit further on a large semi-trailer. All in all, it took me an hour and a half longer than usual to reach the Hill.

[An hon. member]

Here he comes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think that, with unanimous consent, we can give the floor to the hon. member who just came in.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, excuse my being out of breath, but as my colleague pointed out, there are times when one is even more in a rush than normally. I want to thank you for having the patience to wait for me. I really wanted to speak on Bill C-56. That is why I asked my colleagues to give me a hand and let you know that I was coming.

However, before I start talking about Bill C-56, in this festive season, I would like to say a few words to the people in the beautiful riding of Terrebonne. As previously mentioned in this House, the riding of Terrebonne is the most beautiful one after your own, dear colleagues. I would like to wish my constituents a very happy holiday season. I also would like to wish all the members of the great Bloc Quebecois family in the riding of Terrebonne a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I want to tell them that, in the coming year, we will have to work very hard, and that I look forward to working with them.

I now want to address Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It should first be pointed out that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meets regularly to harmonize, as much as possible, the various environment acts which cause problems between the federal government and the provinces.

While the provincial ministers are trying to agree on how to improve federal-provincial relations on the environment, the federal minister tells them: "You may pursue your useless talks on the harmonizing the environmental assessment process, but as for me, I will proclaim the CEEA which will immediately be amended by Bill C-56 and, in so doing, I will agree to federal interference in this area, which will be legitimized as soon as the bill is passed".

But the minister tells them: "Go on, continue your discussions between provinces, while I put forward the so-called flexible federalism". The subject of flexible federalism was raised last Thursday, and my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie gave us a definition of flexible federalism: it is a federal system in which the federal government encroaches on the provinces and the provinces give in. Bill C-56 is a case in point.

This short bill is designed to amend Bill C-13 with just four clauses, but these clauses show the federal government's intention to interfere in environmental assessment.

Logically, the federal government should limit itself to environmental assessments of projects for which it is the main developer, projects carried out on crown lands or Indian lands that require its specific authorization or to which it contributes so much that the very project depends on it. That is not the case with Bill C-56.

With Bill C-13 as amended by Bill C-56, the federal government is moving in the opposite direction. It gives itself the authority to make assessments in just about any circumstance, based on the various criteria prescribed in the legislation. This bill, if adopted, that is if Bill C-56 is allowed to amend Bill C-13, will result in legal controversy, federal-provincial conflict, again, immeasurable cost due to overlap, endless delays for the proponents. For developers, it will mean loss of contracts, loss of projects, loss of economic benefits.

Finally, the most deplorable effect this bill will have is inadequate environmental protection, because of the stubbornness of governments-need I remind you-as it is the duty of each to protect its own jurisdiction. Imposing federal jurisdiction on the provinces like that is not the way to go. The biggest loser in all this will be the environment, the very thing we were supposed to be protecting. The primary objective of the legislation is nullified by this legislation, this amended legislation. How great.

I am certainly not saying that it would be easy to determine which level of government should have jurisdiction on the environment. The constitutional division of environmental law-making powers is complex; the Constitution allocates certain responsibilities to the provinces and others to the federal government.

The Canadian Constitution does not give jurisdiction over the environment to the federal government or the provinces. When legislative powers were divided in 1867, the people and Parliament knew very little about the problems of pollution and environmental degradation. We must understand that the Fathers of Confederation could not include in the Constitution matters which were not then of public interest. That is partly why this sector is not among the various responsibilities assigned to the two levels of government under sections 91 and 92 of the 1867 Constitution Act.

While provincial environment ministers are trying to come to an agreement because the Constitution is far from clear on who is responsible for what in this area, the minister jumps into the fray saying, "Get out of my way. I am the boss in this matter".

Unfortunately for her, the official opposition is standing guard and will not remain silent on a bill like C-56, which will undermine the environmental assessment powers of Quebec and the other provinces by complementing C-13. It must be pointed out that Quebec has its own environmental assessment law, the Environment Quality Act. This law was even called one of the best in the world and one of the best assessment procedures.

With over 20 years of experience in environmental assessment, Quebec is way ahead. Why set this aside? Why reject this out of hand? Bill C-56 calls into question expertise that was acquired two decades ago.

On many occasions, the federal government has shown its interest in the environment. It has put forward principles like sustainable development, the fact that the environment knows no boundaries, and the national interest. On environmental issues, we have also been told about peace, order and good government, which are found in section 91. In short, a whole slew of arguments that we consider indefensible a priori. We have evidence to the contrary.

Bill C-13, as amended by Bill C-56, is a real legal hornets' nest. As you know, the great majority of legal challenges in this field end up in the Supreme Court, which means long delays, and except for lawyers, no one wins in these sterile conflicts. Here we might recall the dilemma opposing Hydro Québec and the Canadian government. I think it is worth giving an example to show that it is not easy to meddle so obviously in another's environmental jurisdiction.

Yes, the dispute arises from the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and not Bill C-13, but the example could very well apply to Bill C-13. The second part concerning toxics is at issue but I am sure that the ruling enlightens us on the wrong direction taken in Bill C-56. Let me quote you part of the sentence handed down by the Quebec Court and upheld by the Quebec Superior Court:

"Giving the federal government jurisdiction over the environment would allow it to infringe on provincial fields of jurisdiction. I repeat here those listed by the applicant: Section 92, subsection 5, public lands belonging to the province; section 92, subsection 8, municipal institutions; subsection 10, local works and undertakings; subsection 13, property and civil rights; and, finally, subsection 16, matters of a merely local nature".

These are some of the provisions which made these two authorities come to the following conclusion: "I have already said that, in my opinion, this section cannot fall under the general power of the federal Parliament to make laws for peace, order and good government. I am also of the opinion that this section cannot fall under the power to legislate criminal law. I therefore declare this section-of the Canadian Environmental

Protection Act-to be ultra vires". That section of the act relating to PCBs and deemed to be ultra vires can have a bearing on the whole underlying philosophy of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The government, which is not even waiting for the impending conclusion of this judgment, now wants to impose an amendment which will also be challenged. Who is the government trying to please, if not lawyers? We wonder.

A court has doubts about the federal authority. The government ignores the decision and continues to interfere even more, probably in the hope of having its other environmental act challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and see that tribunal conclude that it is ultra vires .

Why is the government so stubborn? It cannot even fulfill its current commitments, yet it keeps asking for more. As you know, in spite of the conventions and treaties signed, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River are more polluted than ever before. In spite of the billions of dollars spent, as mentioned in the newspapers last week, acid rain keeps poisoning our forests and lakes. In spite of the treaty signed in Rio, Canada has not reached its objective of reducing greenhouse gases. And the federal government still wants to interfere in a field which falls under provincial jurisdiction. We must wonder why the federal government wants to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction when it cannot even adequately carry out its own obligations. Tell me why.

After all, Canadians and Quebecers will have to foot the bill for this. Some would argue that the environment knows no boundary, and it is true. We are reminded of that so often that we have to wonder why broader international treaties are not signed. Yes, we agree that the government has the right to sign such agreements, but when it does, it cannot even honour them.

In 1992, the federal government became involved in promoting sustainable development, but did not meet its objectives. This example and all the others I have already given show why, with our expertise is Quebec, with a bill like Bill 26 passed by the Ontario legislature to protect its environmental rights, with the environmental agreements reached with Alberta and with all the various agreements, we just have to reject Bill C-56 that would amend Bill C-13 and create grey areas in interpreting the law. Before passing any laws that would raise doubts, we must determine who has jurisdiction in this area. I think the minister should listen to what the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has to say.

I urge the House to examine, reconsider and reject Bill C-56.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I only want to say that this third reading debate is perhaps the last and only opportunity we will have to speak on Bill C-56. The Committee on Environment, is touring the country and we realized that the bill raises great concerns. Business people and provinces are worried and provincial environment departments are not sure how this legislation works. All they see is overlap and duplication.

The message here to Quebec and the other provinces, which will have the same problem, is that it will cost an arm and a leg to administer. We have to save everywhere, I think, not only in the budgets and things like that. All departments must do their part to save and reduce the current deficit, and the Department of the Environment is no exception.

The Department of the Environment should perhaps better administer its budget and avoid overlap and duplication of services that already exist in other jurisdictions, namely the provinces. This bill will not work. It will cause economic and legal problems. It will be awful for Canada's and especially Quebec's economic development.

These are the simple comments I wanted to make.