Debates of April 11th, 2003

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 103 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 103

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

With regard to programs and all other special expenditures for aboriginals in Delta—South Richmond, what was the total expenditure by department for fiscal years (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) thus far in 2002-2003 for each band or aboriginal organization?

(Return tabled.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I shall now propose the motions in Group No. 2.

[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”

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to talk about the federal government's right to do environmental assessments on Canadian territory in general.

In fact, my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, whom I much admire because of his dedication to the environmental cause and who is in fact a friend, disagrees with me on this subject. However, I would like to remind him first of all that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the federal government has a fundamental right to act in the matter of environmental assessment in cases under its jurisdiction. Moreover, the Supreme Court has even said that the federal government has not only the right, but also the obligation to do so.

We have all heard about the Oldman case. The federal government wanted to withdraw from an environmental assessment case that had gone to court and eventually to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had a fundamental responsibility to act in the matter of environmental assessment.

To confirm that, what better could I do than quote the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois who was then the opposition leader. I could quote many statements that he made regarding the James Bay case where, as environment minister, he had said “No, no, the federal law has to be applied”. It was on Quebec territory. He was very clear on this.

During the 1993 election campaign, in an interview with Le Point he said, “I support this initiative”. In 1994, in an interview with The Gazette he described the federal environmental legislation as “my baby”.

Maybe we should work in cooperation. Mr. Bouchard's baby is now—

[An hon. member]

A federal piece of legislation is encroaching on one you yourself created.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make similar points, perhaps with greater emphasis on what we just heard from the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I wish to echo some of the comments he made and perhaps add some.

In the course of reviewing the environmental assessment legislation, and even more so than what we see before the House in the way of amendments, in some of the discussion we had in committee there was a great deal of concern about the lack of enforcement provisions in the bill. In what is in effect the existing section 62 of the act, there was a variety of amendments proposed by all parties, I believe, certainly by most of the parties represented on that committee.

It was clear that when one stood back and took an objective overview of it, part of what we were trying to do was get at that issue of how we at least could be sure that in the legislation, which as I have already said in the House on a number of occasions is inadequate and relatively weak, what is there would be carried out and enforced, so that as much protection as possible that could be garnered for the environment would in fact be garnered by this legislation.

Various proposals were put forward specifically around monitoring and enforcing, making sure that both the act and the regulations, and I think that is an important point, were in fact carried out, both in the wording that is there and in the spirit that is intended by the act and the regulations.

Most of the amendments, the more strongly worded ones in particular, were voted down by the Liberal majority on the committee. We did end up with what we now find as Motion No. 25, which is a compromise, I would say. It is better than what we have in the law now. The amendment will be an improvement.

I have to say, perhaps as a warning to the government, that this is being monitored by the opposition parties, by the environmental community and by other people who have followed the course of environmental assessment legislation. They are going to be watching very closely, because this compromise was in effect a statement by the government, which was saying, “Trust us. This wording is strong enough. There is enough direction in this wording in these amendments that in fact we will see to it that the law, limited though it may be, at least will be carried out”.

I suppose what I am saying to the government today is that it should be aware that the environmental community is watching this part of it very closely to see if the government is going to be true to its word and is in fact going to enforce and carry out the terms and the spirit of the law.

With regard to Motion No. 27, there are a couple of points. The committee was very clear, I think, that it was concerned about the length of time before the next review of the legislation would be done. There was a good deal of evidence, which we took from a number of witnesses, that the amendments were not going to be sufficient to deal with the problems that accrued since the act was originally passed seven years ago.

A number of specific amendments were proposed for a shorter review period. It is now seven years from the time of royal assent. There were proposals for as brief as one year all the way up to five years. Ultimately, the amendment now before the House is the one that was sent forward from the committee, again under a vote from the majority party.

The comment I would make to the government is one I heard the member for Lac-Saint-Louis make. We do not have to necessarily wait those seven years. The minister responsible at any given time and his or her department have to monitor this on an ongoing basis to see whether the proposed amendments, most of which we expect will ultimately pass, are sufficient to deal with the problems that have accrued. If they are not, I urge the minister not to wait out the seven years and to use this period of time wisely. If problems continue to be pointed out that we have already experienced, we should review the law and pass the necessary amendments so that the environment is protected by way of a valid environmental assessment process.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.