Debates of April 11th, 2003

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has a point of privilege.

Privilege

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the 36th Parliament, parliamentary privilege has been increasingly and repeatedly attacked. Privileges are defined as follows by Joseph Maingot in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , on page 11, and it is very clear:

Parliamentary privilege is a fundamental right necessary—

Later, on the same page, he goes on to state:

It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate power to protect itself and its members and officials in the exercise of their functions.

I would like to give a few examples of how these privileges are being completely disregarded.

We need only think of the pre-eminence of Parliament in terms of the rights of parliamentarians to be the first informed. Committee reports are leaked before they can be tabled in the House. Statements are being given outside the House, which means that the media are quite frequently more up to date on the work of committees than parliamentarians are.

This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. I already condemned this disturbing situation when I raised a question of privilege on December 12, 1998, about information leaked from a report on prebudget consultations prepared by the Standing Committee on Finance. I stated at the time that leaked committee reports are becoming common occurrences.

I will name a few instances that occurred during the 36th Parliament: the report on nuclear non-proliferation by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs; the report on amateur and professional sports in Canada by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage; and the report by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.

This kind of leak is still happening on a regular basis. Recently, the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry himself expressed the committee's viewpoint as set out in a draft report. The same thing happened with the Standing Committee on Health. In fact, on December 11, 2002, the supplementary report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs was leaked. Since the beginning of the 36th Parliament, almost 15 leaks have undermined the privileges of the House and for only a few of these were the culprits admonished.

And what about the government motion on the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10 that deals with animal cruelty? Let me remind the House of that motion.

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House concurs with the Senate's division of the bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), but

that the House, while disapproving any infringement of its rights and privileges by the other House, waives its rights and privileges in this case, with the understanding that this waiver cannot be construed as a precedent; and

that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.

It has become so commonplace to infringe upon the privileges of parliamentarians that we have no qualms about referring to it in a motion. It does not matter if we say in a motion that it cannot be construed as a precedent. When we abuse someone, whether it is verbally or in any other way, we cannot argue afterwards that it never happened. These things hurt and are not forgotten.

The same applies to the privileges of parliamentarians. When can we expect another motion like that one, where we are told that it is not a precedent? Putting up with this kind of abuse, although we might not acknowledge it, does undermine our position.

Parliamentary privilege is not some sort of flexible concept. It is fundamental and essential to the work we do. To play with parliamentary privilege in such an odious way is to discredit the institutions in which we work.

Nevertheless, let us return to the case at hand and your ruling on Monday. The procedural irregularities that took place on April 1 and 2 in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources are yet another instance. We have a committee chair who permitted the moving of the previous question, despite this passage on page 786 of House and Commons Procedure and Practice :

The moving of the previous question is prohibited in a Committee of the Whole as it is in any committee.

You said, in your ruling on Monday:

—committees are also expected to adopt any such limits in a regular and procedurally acceptable manner.

Moreover, you quoted Speaker Fraser's ruling given on March 26, 1990:

—I would urge all chairmen and members of committees to try and strive mightily to ensure that the general rules of this place are followed as far as is sensible and helpful in those committees.

He also stated:

—chairmen ought to be mindful of their responsibilities and make their decisions and rulings within the bounds of the fine balance provided by our rules.

How can we expect the Chair of this committee to maintain order and decorum, pursuant to Standing Order 117, when he is the one creating disorder? He even invited a member of the government party to appeal his ruling with respect to the previous question, as if to say, “Go ahead and contest my ruling. You have the majority. We will hold a vote and you, with your majority, can reverse my ruling. Then you can move the previous question. And to hell with the Standing Orders”.

A committee chair who openly invites a committee member to contest a ruling based directly on the Standing Orders, and on a point of order into the bargain, is issuing a direct invitation to circumvent the rules that govern us, not once but twice, to serve his own purposes. That is, to put it plainly, dictatorial.

What is the implication of contravening the Standing Orders for members who are insulted in this manner? Let me quote once again page 786 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

—the moving of the previous question would prevent Members from proposing amendments and considering the legislation to the fullest extent possible.

To deliberately prevent a member from having the tools required to do his job is a breach of his privileges. I know full well, as you said in your ruling on the point of order that I raised last Monday, that committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This committee is led by a tyrannical chairman who decisions show no signs of fairness. In this case, the committee, particularly its chairman, through his actions, has shown that he must be brought into line because he very clearly contravenes the Standing Orders, preventing members, as the previous quotation shows, from appropriately and effectively doing their job.

Once again on the matter of order and decorum, the committee chairman assumes an arrogant and contemptuous air when some opposition members speak, when we try to ask for clarification on certain decisions. He also assumes an indifferent air during committee proceedings, slouching in his chair and even joking with his Liberal colleagues, detracting from discipline while opposition members are speaking. His attitude is quite different when his Liberal colleagues are speaking.

I would like to share with you another breach of my parliamentary privileges. At a committee meeting, I asked the clerk to clarify a decision the committee was preparing to take. The chair of the committee came between the committee clerk and myself in order prevent her from answering me directly, and by that very fact stopped her from providing me with an answer. The committee chair himself provided me with a cursory answer, with no explanation, as he stated this was not necessary.

Quoting from page 834 of Marleau and Montpetit;

The clerk of a committee is the procedural advisor to the chair and all members of the committee and also acts as its administrative officer. The role of the committee clerk is analogous to that which the Clerk of the House has with respect to the Speaker and members of the House. As a non-participant and independent officer, the clerk serves equally all members of the committee as well as representatives of all parties; clerks discharge their duties and responsibilities with respect to the committee in consultation with the chair. The clerk also acts as the committee's liaison with other branches and services of the House of Commons.

It is clear that, once again, my rights and privileges have not been respected and I have not been able to properly perform my duties as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon you today because I have been unsuccessful with all the recourses you invited me to call upon in your ruling this past Monday. I came to you with a point of order and complied with your request to return to the committee with a motion calling upon it to report on the procedural irregularities of April 1 and 2. This was disdainfully refused with cynicism and arrogance by the committee chair and the Liberal members.

Consequently, the entire matter remains unresolved. Yet it is very urgent to take action because the committee is still in operation. I am appealing to you as the guardian of my rights and privileges, because the chair of my committee has not been able to protect them, and on more than one occasion moreover. You, Mr. Speaker, are, to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice page 26:

—the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

In addition, on the previous page, we see that your duties:

—require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority.

We expect no less. This latter quote captures the essence of parliamentary privilege as well as of your role and duty to preserve the delicate balance between the power between the government party and the opposition.

You said you wanted to rule on my point of order in a timely fashion since:

—it may have some bearing on the work that the committee intends to take up this week.

Referring us to committee resulted in our being subjected to an illegitimate gag order, which breaches our privileges as parliamentarians. Of course, the chair of the committee did not allow a motion to censure the disorder in that committee.

How can a chair who ignores the procedure and practice of the House be expected to allow me to move a motion to report to the House what happened in committee?

Discussing the matter at the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons is inappropriate. The suggestion by the government House leader was dishonest. This matter must de decided now.

What is at stake today is respect for the privileges of parliamentarians and the rights of opposition members to do their job properly without the sword of arbitrariness being held over their heads.

If the procedural irregularities that took place during the consideration of Bill C-7 at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources are allowed to go unchallenged, this will create a dangerous precedent. How can we trust after such a affront that it will not happen again? How will the work of the committee be managed from now on?

These questions are all the more pressing because since you handed down your ruling in response to my point of order, the work of the committee has been done in a permanent climate of tension that has been exacerbated by the smug and contemptuous attitude of the committee chair, an attitude that even affects the public that attends the meetings.

On Tuesday, the day after your ruling, the attitude of the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources provoked a strong verbal reaction from two first nations representatives who were present. The chair abruptly ordered their removal, and had it not been for my intervention, these perfectly peaceful women would have been subjected to the humiliation of being forcefully expelled by four security guards. When I was heading out the door with the two women, the committee chair hurled abuse at me and ordered me to mind my own business, using language that was disrespectful, irreverent and unworthy of a member of Parliament.

Since your ruling on my point of order, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources has also demonstrated bias and used a double standard in his decisions. For example, on Tuesday he would not allow first nations members to take photographs in committee, and then on Wednesday, he was quite happy to let constituents from his riding take all the pictures they wanted, even extending an invitation to two students to sit at the table during the committee's hearings.

Given the importance of the issues being examined, it is imperative that the committee chair be rigorous, have decorum, be professional and especially impartial. I wonder how the House would have reacted if this type of behaviour or these types of injustices had occurred here in the House.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, since the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources has violated the Standing Orders by his cavalier management of debate and his complete lack of decorum, to recognize that there has been a prima facie breach of my privilege, of my right to do my job properly. I am therefore prepared to move the appropriate motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This morning the other side of the House wandered all over the procedural map. First, the hon. member challenged the Speaker's rulings with regard to Bill C-10A. In fact, he challenged pretty much everybody, spoke ill of other hon. members of this House, and, to top it off, made gratuitous accusations about me because, in the past, I volunteered to help improve committee procedures in the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons on which we all sit. Finally, he made all kinds of accusations about the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

As we are all aware, the hon. member for Nickel Belt chairs the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. Recently he has faced long debates, sometimes up to 10 hours or more on such topics as the committee's agenda. It has been difficult for a number of hon. members.

This issue was brought before the House. You and your colleagues who sit in the Chair felt that the committee should, of course, first report on its work and then action would follow, if necessary.

Once again, this ruling is challenged. However, this does not mean that a parliamentarian who sits on a committee would be authorized to do just about anything since no report has been submitted to the House. Of course not.

The accusations made against the hon. member are very serious. This is why I think that, before the Chair makes a ruling on this issue, the hon. member for Nickel Belt who, right now, is not available to provide an immediate reply, should at least be given the opportunity to defend his actions. He probably did not get a notice informing him that this issue would be raised. In fact, I myself as House leader was not notified. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was probably not given that courtesy either.

I am sure that he will want to reply. Should the Chair decide to investigate this matter with the committee, then I would ask the Chair to also look at the other side of the coin, that is the accusations made by some members against the chair of the committee, who told the House about being the object of physical threats and so on.

Should the Chair of this House decide to investigate the issue, he should not look at just one component. It would be important to look at both sides. Indeed, based on what the hon. member for Nickel Belt told the House a few days ago, there is another version to this whole affair. Therefore, it would be important to hear it if, of course, the Chair decides to take a closer look at this matter.

I will conclude by saying once again that, in light of the seriousness of the accusations made, the hon. member should at least have the right to give his version before the Chair rules on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I want to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their interventions.

The Chair totally agrees that, before a ruling can be made, the member for Nickel Belt should be given the opportunity to present the facts that he may want to share with the House.

From what I understand, the committee is no longer sitting in camera. Therefore, the Chair will examine all the documents that are available. After the intervention that the Chair anticipates from the member for Nickel Belt, it will be ready to rule on this matter. For now, the matter is taken under advisement.

The House resumed from April 10 consideration of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9 at report stage, the statutory review of the environmental assessment legislation.

Bill C-9 and its precursor, Bill C-19, came about as a result of the requirements of the mandatory review requirements set out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, also known as the CEAA, or Bill C-13, which was proclaimed in 1992 and came into force in January 1995.

Section 72 of the current act required that the minister undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the act five years after its coming into force. It also required that within one year after the review the minister submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any recommended changes.

At the outset, we believe the review was fundamentally flawed. Although participants indicated some progress in improving environmental planning, there remained significant deficiencies in a variety of areas, including sustainability, regional planning and policy coordination, alternative development options, traditional land use and aboriginal participation, and perhaps most significant, the lack of practical enforcement measures.

New Democrats had reservations about the bill as it was introduced because it did not adequately address these and other severe problems associated with the act. Our initial opposition was based on the assertion that the bill failed to address three principal criteria.

The current CEAA did not go far enough to protect our environment and the changes proposed in Bill C-9 would further weaken that legislation.

Bill C-9 attempted to streamline and speed up the environmental assessment and review process seemingly to the benefit of developers and industry instead of protecting the environment and the public.

The bill did not substantively address the measures needed to strengthen and improve safeguards to protect the environment.

During debate of the bill and throughout committee hearings we raised those and other concerns over the lack of effectiveness, transparency and efficiency in the EA process.

By listening to my own constituents in Dartmouth, I am very aware of what the community wants and, I believe, has the right to expect from federal environmental assessments.

I would like to provide an example of the lack of transparency which this process now has in place.

The reasonable expectations of environmentally aware and community-minded people are often dashed due to the deficiencies of the environmental assessment process, deficiencies which are not corrected in the statutory review of Bill C-9.

In Dartmouth, for example, we currently have a coast guard base on a large wharf on the Halifax harbour near Dartmouth Cove. I dare say that the red and white coast guard icebreakers, such as the Louis St. Laurent and the John A. Macdonald , are almost as much of a local landmark as the naval yards are on the Halifax side of the harbour. In my mind the base is another part of the bustling activity of one of the world's great working harbours set in a magnificent natural beauty.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has decided that it eventually will be moving the coast guard base down the harbour to the site of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. I have no reason to believe that such a move would impair the important functions of the coast guard. If it can save money and allow for better search and rescue then all the better. However, one issue that is outstanding is what will happen to the current coast guard base. That is where the environmental assessment issue comes in.

The local municipality, the HRM, has for decades wanted to build sewage treatment plants throughout the municipality, including one near Dartmouth. I have supported these general plans because I am opposed to the dumping of raw sewage in the harbour, as is everyone in our community.

About 10 years ago the then municipalities of Halifax and Dartmouth proposed a number of cites for sewage plants, including one on the island in the middle of the harbour to take the Dartmouth sewage. An assessment was done that looked at the impact of the possible island sewage treatment plant. It is no real surprise that the result of that environmental study showed that building the plant would result in better water quality. The plant, however, was never built. It is now 10 years later and the municipality wants to put another plant on the current site of the coast guard base.

The Halifax regional municipality believes that this site is accessible to both the main sewage pipes from Dartmouth and it can also take the sewage from the cruise ships that are starting to frequent our harbour, and it will be available on the right time line in terms of when the base is moved by the coast guard.

The coast guard base is nestled right beside a residential community. There is a very limited amount of traffic going up and down the steep and narrow road to the base and the current base generates very little noise or odour.

Understandably, the neighbours around the coast guard base are not convinced that this would be the case with the sewage treatment plant. They have concerns about it. They worry that the plant will smell because it will only be about 100 yards from their homes. They worry about the noise and danger of heavy vehicles during the construction, and the noise and danger of the sludge trucks which will go up and down pass the area when the plant is operating. They worry about what this will do to the quality of their lives and their property values.

They have a right to worry about these things, and because the land is owned by the federal government, they have a right to look to the environment assessment process to make sure their concerns are dealt with.

I, as the MP, thought this would happen, that there would be an assessment because this project would involve the disposal of federal lands and that of course would automatically trigger an assessment.

I thought the environmental assessment would deal with the local concerns, which would have been communicated to both the municipality and to the federal department responsible. I expected that the assessment would look at the condition of the base, the concerns of the neighbours and would suggest ways for the plant to deal with concerns raised. I guess I was naive to believe that the system would be accessible and transparent for my constituents.

The environmental assessment screening that was done was released in January and it did not discuss many of the issues raised. It set limits on noise and odour for a plant. It was vague on how compliance would be enforced. It did not look at the condition of the base. It did not deal with the specific concerns raised by the community, or by me, to the department. It had not left anyone feeling that the environment was better served.

The basic problem is that it was not a transparent process. It did not even deal with the actual proposed site in Dartmouth but discussed guidelines for three sites around the HRM. It did confirm that having sewage treatment was better than not having sewage treatment, but there is no surprise in that. It took comments from the consortium trying to build the plants pretty much at face value. It did not seek or obtain community input. My office, which had written to the minister on the site and the assessment, was not even made aware of the assessment's release.

The municipalities public relations meetings have not been satisfactory to the community. As a matter of fact the report says that 19 submissions were received of which 5 were supportive. The report says that the local concerns have been dealt with but many of them were not.

I say these things to highlight how unsatisfactory the assessment process was for these local Dartmouth residents. They feel that the environmental assessments are something that exists for high price consultants and for developers and not for public input.

I have since learned that getting an assessment to a public panel stage, where members of the community can actually get a formal hearing, are so rare that it is virtually impossible.

After reviewing the legislation and in consultation with a variety of environmental, aboriginal and legal experts, the NDP submitted more than 50 amendments to Bill C-9. These amendments attempted to address some of the identified shortcomings of the act. While there was some success in getting several amendments, many more were defeated, as the House knows.

In conclusion, we cannot support Bill C-9 in its present form or the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. It must be made clear that the NDP supports the goals of improving the environmental assessment process to make it more accountable, more transparent and to strengthen the protection of our environment.

Therefore it is with regret that because of the inadequacies of CEAA that we were not able to bring about meaningful amendments, we will have to give our dissent on the bill at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first group of amendments that we have before us at report stage reflect the essential problem the New Democrats have with the legislation.

The bill, as we heard from the member for Dartmouth, has had a lengthy history in terms of trying to improve the environmental assessment process in this country. There has been a great deal of criticism of it since it was actually incorporated into legislation following a series of what were, in effect, cabinet and ministerial directions on environmental assessment dating back to the 1970s, if we go back far enough, but certainly through the 1980s and 1990s until it became law.

The primary concern has been the lack of detailed hearings, if I can put it that way, which has resulted in us not having a body of law grow up under this legislation because we have had so few of the hearings. I think we were up to 12 as of the time the amendments were before the committee. That would be in the context of thousands and thousands of proposals that came before the government for assessments, but were dealt with by way of what, in most cases, were very summary screenings of the projects.

I will use one example of what did not receive a hearing and a panel review. We have developing now the largest depository of nuclear waste in the country and probably in the world. The expansion of this depository here in Ontario, up in the Bruce Peninsula, was screened and a decision was made that there would be no panel review, in spite of very strong demands by the environmental community and, I suppose, even more important, by the residents in the Bruce Peninsula for that type of review. It simply did not occur, nor will it at this time. There were several more examples given to us at the time that the committee reviewed these amendments.

I think there is another major problem with the proposed amendments by the government. We have to appreciate that we were working within a very limited confine of the amendments that were proposed. Because of that, we were not able to address a number of the issues. One of the major issues that should have been addressed was that of the enforcement of the legislation because there really is, in effect, no enforcement within the existing law and certainly not within the amendments that are being proposed.

To come specifically to the group of amendments that we have proposed before us in Group No. 1, they reflect the government's approach on this. I have to say that some of these amendments are purely technical and are an improvement to the bill as it went through the committee. There are a couple of amendments in this group that, and I am not quite sure what happened here, I believe, are in a bit of a different form. They are amendments that were proposed at the committee stage, were voted down by the majority of the Liberals on the committee and are now showing up in a somewhat different form, but they are improvements over the original part of the bill. Several of them, although not very many, are improvements for which we would be supportive.

Unfortunately, several of them, and I would address my comments specifically to the proposed Motions Nos. 12, 15, 17 and 21, are retrograde over the work that the committee did and will make environmental assessments less meaningful, less effective and less protective of the environment.

In a summary if I can encapsulate what the amendments do, is they limit the ability of people in local communities, or municipalities or environmentalists who have reservations about the proposed development to respond. In some cases the four amendments place fairly restrictive time frames on the ability of people who are opposing proposals to get information and to respond.

What the committee did, and I believe it was astute on its part, was to say that in some cases there should be no specific time limits within which the minister could give final approval to a proposal. There would be guidelines for when he or she would do that based on providing sufficient information, either through the department or by the proponents themselves, to the people who were concerned about the development.

What some of these amendments do is put a 15 day time limit within which this information can be dispersed to the opponents and then the minister can proceed. The minister in effect only has to wait 15 days.

We have to appreciate, and I am perhaps wearing my lawyer's hat for a moment, what that does to opponents. We had one example of one group that came before us to give testimony. It was being faced with a very short time frame, I think it was 30 days, and had access to thousands of pages of material, scientific study in particular, some of it very technical. It was required to respond and to put forth its position within that 15 or 30 day period. It was literally impossible for it do that in that time frame.

What the committee recommended in some of these sections, the government is now proposing to change through the amendments in Group No. 1 with very specific time limits being placed on them again. This is in spite of what we had proposed based on the experience we had under this legislation and experiences prior to that in Canada, as well as the experiences internationally.

It is simply not possible, given the scope of some of these proposed developments, for concerned citizens to respond in a timely fashion when they have a 15, 20 or 30 day time frame. Oftentimes the concerned citizens are required to retain lawyers, which some may already have, or other experts, and that is usually where the problem is, to do a meaningful assessment of the reams of material so they can respond in some type of informed way.

I go back to environmental assessments. If we are to have an effective and meaningful system for environmental assessments, the concerned citizens of the country, the citizens who will be directly impacted by these proposed developments, need to have meaningful input. That oftentimes means reasonable notice, an opportunity to involve themselves in the process by retaining experts and the framework of the legislation to do that.

Unfortunately, in many respects it is going in the opposite direction, particularly with the four amendments I mentioned. They are limiting in very significant degrees the rights and capabilities of concerned citizens to be involved in this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will make some very brief comments on the first group of amendments on the review process.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is undergoing a mandatory review. The CEA process itself is to ensure that the impact of projects under federal government decision making authority are properly assessed. The act was first passed by the Conservative government in June 1992 but only came into proclamation in 1995.

The review leading up to Bill C-9 was launched in 1999 and it was conducted by CEA. The review entailed the commissioning of background papers, consultations with interest groups, specialized work groups, a parallel consultation process with aboriginal organizations, consultations with provinces and with federal departments and agencies. The amendments proposed in Bill C-9 are based on the consideration of the views presented during that consultative phase.

The stark problem with that process is the fact that the Minister of the Environment, prior to reviewing this act, had the sole authority to determine which aspects of the act needed to be reviewed. The scope of what we are actually discussing is only a very small section of the act in general.

Some amendments in Group No. 1 deal with the timing of environmental assessments. A second group of amendments also are encompassed in the Group No. 1 motions which deal with minor technical changes, including amendments to ensure proper concordance between French and English. The third group of amendments deal with the machinery of government and the agency's role to ensure that we have compliance of the act itself.

I would like to speak primarily to Motions Nos. 12, 15, 17 and 21.

The standing committee passed an amendment stating that no decisions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, including environmental assessment decisions, could be taken until 30 days after the posting of the last document on the Internet site of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.

There are those who believe this amendment would create significant delays because the 30 day period was not tied to a specific point in time. The time clock would restart with each posting of each new document. In addition, there are those who believe having a 30 day requirement for all projects does not recognize the difference between relatively small screening levels of assessments and assessments that are conducted through a comprehensive study, mediation or a panel review.

The government has proposed amendments to clause 12 so that decisions for simple screenings could occur 15 days after the notice of commencement and a description of the scope of the project has been posted on the Internet site. For more complex screenings with public participation, decisions could only occur 15 days after the scope of assessment or description of how to obtain it has been posted on the Internet site.

There are some missed opportunities here. Fifteen days is simply too short. Posted documents are only notification of commencement of an environmental assessment. We will not know what pieces of information on which the assessment itself will be based. The government will not be posting documents that are relevant to the final decision of the environmental assessment. A 30 day requirement is applied in other jurisdictions, such as the provinces, without bringing the process to a standstill.

The government of Ernie Eves, formerly that of Mike Harris, has a 30 day requirement on environmental assessment. I do not think business is coming to a standstill in that province. I think most members in the chamber would understand that the Ontario government is definitely pro-business.

I do not know why the Liberal government wants to be less environmentally friendly by having a further restriction by pulling it back to 15 days from 30 days.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are aware as a veteran of this chamber, that 99% of all environmental assessments are done under screenings. That means that 99% of all environmental assessments will only have a short 15 day window to have any public consultation or intervention and we would still not know what tool kit the government utilizes when it formulates its assessment in general.

For comprehensive studies, the government motion would create a minimum 30 day period between the public release on the Internet site of the comprehensive study report and the minister's environmental assessment decision. The text of the proposed amendment refers to other documents that must be included on the Internet site before decisions can be taken, such as a notice of commencement and the scoping information. There are some missed opportunities here. The government did not make any changes to this. However remember, going back to the screenings, that 99% of all EAs are performed through screenings, not comprehensive studies.

The approach it has taken on comprehensive studies would be a more prudent one if it were adopted for the screening process. I do not believe it would bring the process to a complete standstill in terms of environmental assessment. If the provinces want to provide more flexibility in 30 days, I do not see why the federal government would want to have such a restrictive and less permissive system for public input. We should have a bit more transparency.

Those are the amendments we are reviewing. To be fair to the government, this is an improvement over the current act but it is a pull back from what the committee did. It has not gut it to the same degree as we have seen in other approaches, such as amendments that were reversed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, or the species at risk legislation.

There was a bit of moderation in this reversal by the government. I give the officials and the minister some credit for at least having some flexibility. However there is a missed opportunity which the Government of Canada could have had by providing more flexibility. If the provinces can provide 30 days for public input, why can the federal government not provide 30 days as opposed to 15?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the Motion No. 1. 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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. 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.