Debates of April 30th, 2003

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 168. I ask that the answer to Starred Question No. 168 be made an order for return. This return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 168

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

In the case of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Western Economic Diversification Canada, Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario (FedNor), and Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA): ( a ) how much money will be allocated to each of them in fiscal year 2003-2004; ( b ) how will it be distributed in each agency by number of person-years and by work location and position; and ( c ) how does Industry Canada allocate funding according to federal transfers for these agencies?

(Return tabled.)

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

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

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 29, in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

Motion P-29

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all memos, notes, minutes of meetings and reports, including all cost-saving reports, regarding the restructuring of Canadian Blood Services facilities in Saskatchewan; specifically regarding Saskatoon's blood laboratories department relocation to Regina.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Blood Services is a blood establishment and, as such, is regulated by Health Canada. Authority to regulate this establishment does not include jurisdiction over its business decisions but focuses instead on safety issues around the blood system.

These establishment business decisions do not fall under the jurisdiction of Health Canada.

If the member were here I would therefore ask her to withdraw the motion. However, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. Minister of the Environment to agree to have this matter transferred for debate.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate.

[The Speaker]

The motion is transferred for debate.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The act applies to federal decisions about projects

It was brought into force in 1995 by this government. Since that time some 40,000 environmental assessments have been conducted by 30 federal departments, boards and agencies. The projects assessed have ranged from the relatively small, such as the rebuilding of the Laurier Bridge here in Ottawa, to more complex proposals such as the Voisey's Bay mine proposal in Labrador.

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are identified, assessed and that, as far as possible, mitigation is done early in the planning phase of the project. It is a precautionary tool that is now used in more than 100 countries.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act contains a provision requiring a review of the act five years after its coming into force.

In preparing for this review, the first step was to ask ourselves, “What is wrong with the existing legislation?”

We heard the concerns about the lack of consistency and certainty in the manner the current process is applied. We also examined issues relating to the quality of assessments. In addition, we heard the concerns about the limited public participation in the on-going process.

I officially launched the review of the act in December 1999, with the release of a discussion paper, and a series of public consultations across the country.

I wanted this review to focus on the development of solutions to problems identified not only by the government but also by those involved in the assessments, environmental groups, industry representatives, aboriginal people and environmental assessment practitioners.

In March 2001, I tabled before Parliament my report on the results of the review and introduced Bill C-19, this bill's predecessor.

Making amendments to environmental laws is never an easy task because the issues are technical and complex. Often views are polarized as to what is the best approach and the stakes of course are very high. However I believe with Bill C-9 we have met those challenges. I believe this legislation responds effectively to concerns about uncertainty, inconsistent quality and limitations to public participation.

When the bill was originally introduced in March of 2001, environmental and industry groups praised it as a step in the right direction. For example, the Canadian Environmental Network and the Mining Association of Canada both issued press releases which were positive at that time.

I am very pleased to report that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development did excellent work examining these proposed changes. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chair and the members of the standing committee for their diligent review of the bill and their thoughtful suggestions and proposed amendments to the bill.

I am especially grateful, if I may take a moment to congratulate one member in particular, to the member for Kitchener Centre for her steadfast work on Bill C-9 in her role as my former parliamentary secretary. She quarterbacked this review process for me and did an absolutely outstanding job.

During its review of Bill C-9, the standing committee also benefited enormously from the advice provided by environmental groups, representatives of industry, aboriginal peoples, individual citizens and academics. I was also particularly fortunate to have received an excellent report of consensus recommendations from my multi-stakeholder regulations advisory committee on how to fix the problems of the current act.

I would like now to describe some of the highlights in Bill C-9 including amendments made by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

First, there are amendments to close gaps and plug loopholes. One of the most significant amendments extends the environmental assessment obligations to crown corporations and this will occur three years after royal assent on Bill C-9. This means that projects initiated by some 40 crown corporations will be subject to environmental assessment.

Further, the standing committee also closed a potential loophole created by the federal court decision in the Red Hill Creek Expressway case that could have been used in the future by project proponents to avoid the requirements of the act. The bill would remove an existing gap that excludes federally funded projects on first nations reserve lands from the requirements for an assessment.

Bill C-9 also provides new authority for regulations to require assessments of projects undertaken by non-federal entities on federal lands, such as, for example airport authorities.

In the Speech from the Throne, Bill C-9 was cited as a model of “smart regulation” because it will enhance the efficiency of the environmental assessment process.

By improving coordination and the operation of the act, the provisions concerning the federal environmental assessment coordinator will allow a more efficient process to be put into place.

The bill makes it impossible for projects that have already undergone scrutiny as part of a comprehensive review to be subject to an assessment by a panel. Bill C-9 provides a new model of class screenings to examine efficiently less important, smaller projects.

The importance of working together with our provincial partners and with the aboriginal people is clearly recognized in this legislation. These changes as well as all other changes made to the bill will make the environmental assessment process safer, and more predictable and timely.

High quality environmental assessments are also indicative of an efficient process. Bill C-9 contains several measures that will ensure that this is always so under the amended Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will be required to establish and lead a quality assurance program. This is a very important initiative because more than 40 Crown corporations will soon be joining the 30 government departments, councils and agencies that currently enforce the act.

The success of the renewed process would depend, in a large part, on steps that we are taking to increase transparency and to promote public participation.

In this regard, Bill C-9 would require the establishment of a government-wide Internet site of project information. The site would include a notice at the start of each assessment. The Internet site would be complemented by the retention of the current system of project files that provide convenient public access to all documents associated with an environmental assessment.

I set three goals in my March 2001 report to Parliament on the five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

First, a renewed federal assessment process that brings a greater measure of certainty, predictability and timeliness of all participants.

Second, the renewed process must produce high-quality environmental assessments that contribute to better decisions in support of sustainable development.

Third, the process must provide opportunities for meaningful public participation.

I am convinced that the improvements in Bill C-9 will lead to the achievement of those goals.

The Government of Canada will be investing some $51 million over the next five years to implement the renewed act. This new funding and the legislative changes made by Bill C-9 will ensure that decision makers, both inside and outside the government, have better information about the environmental effects of proposed projects. Better information will mean better decisions that promote progress on the environmental priorities, including clean air, clean water, protection of Canada's biodiversity and climate change.

May I once again congratulate the members from all parties who took part in the diligent work done by the committee over the past year to improve Bill C-9.

I encourage the House to support passage of this important legislation, designed to ensure that new development projects are thoroughly examined in the planning stage to prevent harm to the environment and to help assure a more sustainable future for Canada.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the third reading on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or CEAA. Although far from perfect, the Canadian Alliance will be supporting this legislation which is the result of a mandatory five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act itself.

Because the five year review did not allow full inspection of the original act, the bill in many ways is incomplete. This is regrettable and will need to be addressed at the next mandatory review seven years from now.

One of the chief features of Bill C-9 is the creation of the Canadian environmental assessment registry. The registry will provide more public access to documents, surrounding a project through an online database. A coordinator position has been created to administer this registry and coordinate the process.

I am pleased with some of the positives achieved at committee with respect to Bill C-9. These include new scoping provisions that can begin before a project is approved. Providing details on the scope of the project will increase transparency and trust between groups that have traditionally clashed over environmental issues.

The creation of an online registry should also provide more and better information. The Canadian Alliance fought hard to ensure that those without Internet access could still obtain information they sought.

Most important though, the entire act will be reviewed in seven years by a parliamentary committee. It is crucial that the next review take the process out of the hands of cabinet, which prevented a number of sections of CEAA not to be opened for political reasons.

When I speak about this review, it was a ministerial review and they very tightly controlled which aspects of the act could be reviewed under the scoping provisions. Fortunately we were able to get an amendment through where the next review would be a parliamentary review. It will be up to the purview of the committee itself. It will be the master of that review and will decide what should be opened. I think that will be a much better review seven years from now.

However there were some flaws which we also identified in Bill C-9 and I would like to talk about those for a few minutes.

The minister said that one of the positives of this act was that CEAA would now extend to some 40 crown corporations. I do not believe that is quite accurate, maybe on the face of it, but I will explain it in more details because this is the exact provision that we fought for in committee.

We felt that crown corporations operating inside Canada should follow the same rules, the Canadian environmental assessment rules, as every other business or company or anybody who fell under this act. Of course they have been exempted.

The government once again exempted many crown corporations from coverage under CEAA. Crown corporations will be allowed three years to create separate regulations governing environmental assessment. Certainly there are crown corporations that need special circumstances but these agencies are relatively few in number. The government had five years to prepare a list in which agencies should be exempted yet this was never done. We have to ask the question.

Under the new legislation, and this is where the government has sort of compromised the crown corporations, crown corporations that want to be exempted under the act have three years to prepare their own environmental assessment process. If they do not, then they will be bound by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We would have argued that they should not have even had that much latitude, that operating inside Canada they should still have been compelled the same as everybody else. However that is another question for another day and one which hopefully will be addressed when the review is done.

Another concern is that Bill C-9 allows too much authority to the minister to seek further consultation before he or she issues a decision statement. This provision is subject to abuse. When a project becomes politically sensitive, the minister could delay making a decision which to this side of the House represents an abuse of process. Again, while we are not suggesting it is, the potential is there for that to happen. We thought it would have been a much stronger bill if that loophole had been closed.

Another weak area is that the municipal land use authorities should have had equal input into the process as first nations bands. This amendment was defeated by the government. Municipal governments could be affected by federal projects near or in their jurisdictions. They should have an equal right to express these concerns within the assessment process. Sadly, they have been excluded. Again, we did not agree with that as well

Despite these concerns the Canadian Alliance recognizes that on balance these improvements would actually help the process and provide better clarity to what exists now in Bill C-9 and other areas. As steps toward a single window of approval process with meaningful penalties are being made, we should not refuse them. Between now and the next review of CEAA, we will have an opportunity to see how these changes will affect environmental assessment in Canada. At that time we can take the next step and improve upon the process.

Environmental protection and the needs of industry must be meshed and both viewpoints need to be considered in this process. Our support for Bill C-9 is not without reservation. We will be watching for the government to make CEAA work much more effectively in the future.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today at this stage of the consideration of Bill C-9, to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or CEAA.

We have worked very hard and with a great deal of goodwill, both in this House and in committee, to amend this bill to ensure it meets the historical demands of Quebec with respect to environmental assessment.

This is done in committee by trying to make changes to both the bill's preamble and its essential clauses, to achieve greater cooperation and collaboration, as indicated; that is what is sought by the accord on environmental harmonization, which Quebec has not signed.

Quebec has not signed this accord on environmental harmonization, and we should recall what Quebec said at the time, which was, “We will not endorse this accord as long as we do not have the assurance that legislatively, our environmental process and legislation will be respected when, for example, projects are carried out in our jurisdiction”.

That is what was said at the time, and I remember this was what Minister Bégin or Minister Cliche was saying when I was elected in 1997. This is also the wish historically expressed by every previous government, whether PQ or Liberal. I will come back later to the commitments the Liberal Party of Quebec made during the last campaign in Quebec concerning environmental assessments and the demands of the current Government of Quebec in terms of environmental assessment process. That is our position, and it is not that we do not want projects carried out within Quebec's jurisdiction not to be subject to an environmental assessment, far from it.

The first bill on this topic, Bill C-78, was introduced on June 18, 1990. A bill respecting environmental assessment was first introduced in 1990, while in Quebec an environmental assessment process was established back in 1975. In Quebec, we developed our own environmental assessment system by incorporating it in the Environment Quality Act in 1978. Well before 1990, some 12 years before the first federal environmental assessment bill was introduced, Quebec was already putting in place its own environmental assessment mechanisms and process.

This shows then that, when it comes to the environment, particularly environmental impact assessment of projects within Quebec, Quebec has already demonstrated its leadership.

By 1978, Quebec had set up its environmental impact assessment system, and two years later, it created the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE) in Quebec. Even Canadian environmental groups have told us that the BAPE is doing excellent work. This office provides for public participation and much greater transparency and has reduced delays in getting an environmental impact assessment. In short, it ensures that proper assessments are done, while making sure that some projects are also cost effective, for example, some hydroelectric projects. So, by 1980, Quebec had created the BAPE.

By 1990, when Bill C-78, the first bill on environmental procedure in Quebec was tabled, Quebec and Robert Bourassa's Liberal government joined forces, and the Minister of the Environment, Pierre Paradis, wrote a letter to the federal Minister of the Environment, Jean J. Charest.

I should first talk about the time that Pierre Paradis, in a letter to Robert René de Cotret, indicated that it was essential for Bill C-78 to introduce some flexibility into Quebec's process and avoid any duplication. At the time, Quebec asked that this be ensured. However, the federal government refused to make the changes to Bill C-78 that the Quebec government was requesting.

On December 17, 1990, that same Minister of the Environment for Quebec, Pierre Paradis, wrote to Jean Charest, federal Minister of the Environment, to tell him that it could clearly be demonstrated that the bill infringed on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. This was a clear indication that the federal government was meddling in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Through all these processes, it seemed clear to me at the time that Quebec had a unanimous position on this issue. In fact, the environment minister of the day expressed it in a letter. On June 16, 1992, Pierre Paradis even made representations before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to indicate the impact that the environmental assessment process could have on the expertise that Quebec had developed and the experience that it had gained. But the government refused to listen to reason.

Seeing that the federal government was refusing to recognize Quebec's expertise and the legitimate demands of the Bourassa government, on March 18, 1992, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous resolution and a unanimous motion calling on the federal government to suspend its procedures.

In 1992, under the premiership of Robert Bourassa, both PQ members and Liberal members passed a unanimous motion voicing strong disapproval of the federal government's bill, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, because it went against Quebec's best interests. The assembly was therefore opposed to the federal Parliament passing the bill.

This shows that it was not only the Bourassa government that expressed its opposition to the process that was being put in place, and which is being amended today, but the whole National Assembly.

We must remember these historic moments. It is important to remember what we, in Quebec, thought at the time to try to understand the impact that the existing legislation, which we want to amend today, has had on us.

Bill C-78 became Bill C-13, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I have here documents from 1992 where the Government of Quebec was saying, with regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and I quote:

There is indeed a risk that the latter will constantly be duplicated, disputed or subordinated to the application of the federal process. Yet, the Quebec procedure has been well established for ten years already; it is well known by the general public and the promoters from Quebec; and it has proven itself.

The Government of Quebec added that the areas where the federal authority can get involved are somewhat limitless.

Therefore, in the view of the Government of Quebec of the time, the scope of this Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was limitless, given all of the provisions the bill contained to force obligatory reviews of projects by the federal authority.

That was our view, in Quebec, of Bill C-13, which became the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which we are amending today.

I will come back later to whether the concerns of the Government of Quebec were justified. I will refer to the Toulnustouc hydroelectric project, on the North Shore, which my colleague has seen postponed. This is a hydroelectric project, not a gas pipeline or an oil project. This hydroelectric project, which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was postponed because of overlap and a federal environmental process that confirmed the conclusions already reached by Quebec's Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement. I will come back to this later.

In its past claims, Quebec said that it was important that there be an acknowledgment. Such was also the view of Alberta, to acknowledge Justice La Forest's Supreme Court decision in the Oldman case. This ruling set out and recognized the federal government's jurisdiction for undertaking environmental assessments of projects for which a federal decision is required. Those words need to be stressed, “where federal participation is required”.

Justice La Forest also added something in his decision that clarifies the issue of the federal government's real powers. He stated that “the Guidelines Order cannot be used as a colourable device to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction which are unconnected to the relevant heads of federal power” by the federal department or the board.

Therefore, Justice La Forest set limits on the federal government's ability to intervene on environmental matters. He recognizes, of course, that the federal government has discretionary powers, given that it is a shared jurisdiction. However, he clearly states that this power is not limitless. This needs to be acknowledged.

At the time, Quebec was also worried that this environmental assessment process would create duplication. It did say that if Bill C-13 was passed as written—and I want to stress this because it is the basic legislation that we are amending here today—it would mean submitting for federal evaluation many environmental projects that had already gone through Quebec's environmental impact examination and assessment procedure. This situation would therefore create a serious duplication problem in Quebec.

At the time, we feared that the federal environmental assessment process would create duplication. It is not that we do not want some projects to go through the environmental assessment procedure. In fact, we would like an environmental assessment to be done on as many projects as possible. That is why we created, in 1980, our very own Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement which ensures that an in-depth environmental assessment is carried out if requested by citizens.

In many ways and quite often, Quebec's environmental assessment process is more thorough than the federal process. Under the federal scheme, only 1% of all projects go through some in-depth analysis, which is not the case in Quebec. Also, Quebec's process is transparent and allows every citizen who so wishes—as long as the request for an environmental assessment is not far-fetched—to obtain consultations, hearings and environmental assessments within a reasonable time frame. Assessments are not done only on projects carried out in a specific area. BAPE can also assess industrial and farming projects, like pig farms, if they are believed to have some environmental impact.

The scope of Quebec's BAPE extends to diverse issues, and not only to specific projects from developers, something that is not possible in the federal process which we enacted a few years ago and which we are amending today.

Therefore, we must recognize the significance of the Quebec process. I remind members that Quebec did not sign the Accord on Environmental Harmonization because it was afraid at that time that the accord was one of those pieces of legislation that are not really intended to improve cooperation. As people often say, with an accord or a bill like that, you do not need to be married. Under these circumstances, we do not want to be partners.

True partnership involves cooperation. What we are hearing today is a request that Quebec become a partner, that Quebec cooperate, but one of the partners will be more equal than the other. It is often said that everyone is equal, but in reality, in the federal system as it now exists, one partner is more equal than the other. That is the federal government, because it has assumed this discretionary power. I will come back to this point later. The government will now let the minister increase his discretionary power, and that is totally unacceptable.

Moreover, as was said at the time of Bill C-13, the Government of Quebec documents submitted to a Senate committee clearly indicated, and here I quote the words of the duly elected Government of Quebec in 1992:

We fail to see why the Government of Quebec should be interested in having the implementation of these elements of the federal environmental assessment process delegated to it, when the procedure Quebec has developed in recent years has been recognized as the most effective in the world.

Not only do we say so, but others say so, too. Why destroy something that is working well? If Quebec were not proactive in environmental assessment, then perhaps I could understand why the Canadian government would want to have a federal procedure, because Quebec was weak in environmental assessment. But why, when the Quebec procedure is recognized, does the government want to create duplicate procedures?

It is because of the will of an increasingly centralizing government in Ottawa, the same government that preaches cooperation and harmonization. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want cooperation and then bring in bills that increase centralization.

Consistency is the only way to go in politics, and it is the only way people will again have faith in the political system. Double talk is indeed the kind of approach and vision that makes voters in Quebec and Canada lose interest. In my view, consistency is fundamental.

As I often said, Quebec voiced its opposition to the bill for several reasons. Why? Because, among other things, there are several elements in the environmental assessment process that depend, for the most part, on the scope and complexity of the probable effects of a project.

The main tool is screening, which applies to 99% of assessed projects. Only 1% of projects, as I said before, are subject to a comprehensive study.

Why then is Quebec's process, which allows for a comprehensive study, not properly recognized? This is what I do not understand. Since the Quebec's process allows for a comprehensive study, why does the federal government want to have a better environmental assessment? They are not taking full advantage of a process that allows for comprehensive studies. Instead, they are consolidating the legislation.

There is another fundamental problem. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act favours self-assessment in that the federal government assesses its own projects. Unlike Quebec, where we have the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement which is responsible for environmental assessments, under Canadian law it is often the departments that do their own assessment. So they are both judge and jury. It is as if the oil industry or an industrial developer were told, “You will conduct your own environmental assessment”. What would happen? It would result in biases. What we really need is not a self-assessment process but a truly independent process as afforded by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

Finally, public hearings were held between January and March 2000. Over 1,200 stakeholders took part. A parallel consultation process was held by the first nations organizations. But Quebec did not take part in these discussion and did not make any comments, gbecause the bill denies Quebec's traditional demands.

This legislation has resulted in 5,500 to 6,000 environmental impact assessments per year. This is a lot. It is important to remember that these assessments are being done by the departments responsible for the projects and not by the agency. The agency could not, in any case, handle such a high volume.

We have some criticisms of several sections of Bill C-9. First, section 22 clearly gives the federal government greater authority to interfere in one of Quebec's jurisdictions. By adding “of the opinion”, the bill gives the minister discretionary power. So, the minister has the discretion to intervene.

Second, in clause 8, the whole part about the federal environmental assessment coordinator clearly shows that the federal government wants to interfere in Quebec's process. The federal government has to create this position because it intends to operate in one of Quebec's jurisdictions. If it stayed in its own jurisdiction, it would not need to do this.

Quebec is not opposed to a federal environmental assessment process, just as it did not oppose the federal species at risk legislation. Why was it not opposed to such legislation? Because, since 1990, Quebec has its own such legislation. It took the federal government 13 years to decide to adopt federal species at risk legislation and, 13 years later, we are being told that the federal legislation might eliminate Quebec's process and legislation.

I do not get it. There are members across the way who voted for this threatened species act when they were in Quebec in 1990. As we consider Bill C-9, to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and allow the federal process to apply in Quebec, I have a hard time understanding how some members opposite who defended and adopted the Quebec process just a few years ago can now support this bill. I do not understand this double talk. They cannot have it both ways.

One cannot endorse a bill providing for environmental assessments in Quebec and, 15 years later, support a bill allegedly designed to improve, from a federal point of view, the current legislation and the original legislation.

As far as we are concerned, the position of federal coordinator reflects the federal government's desire to interfere in the process established in Quebec. As I said, we objected to that, and so did the Government of Quebec. Why? Because we have our own Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

I want to stress that this widely recognized process is more transparent when it comes to public participation. It is at arm's length as compared to the federal government's self-assessment approach, which I described earlier, whereby departments assess their own projects.

The process in Quebec is more at arm's length, as compared to that approach. It excludes fewer projects, thus ensuring more comprehensive protection of the environment. It is less complex than the federal process. It is also more uniform, hence more predictable, since it comes under just one entity instead of various federal departments.

Finally, it provides clearly set time limits, contrary to the federal process, which never gives any precise time limit.

When we look at the Quebec process, and analyse its performance record, including the latest report of the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement for 2000-01, which I have recently examined, we might conclude that Quebeckers are finding that the process in Quebec is not working; that it is time for a double safety net; that the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement is not, Quebeckers feel, carrying out sufficiently independent assessments; that it is time then for the federal level to step in and patch up the Quebec process; that, basically, the Quebec process needs to be consolidated because it is no good.

Yet polls have been carried out in connection with the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement, because it is important to examine what is being done, in order to see whether it is appreciated and whether the process is a good one. Most poll subjects who attended a public information session by the BAPE, 91% in fact, found its presentation appropriate. As well, 92% found the various means used to inform and consult the public on a project useful.

I am not sure that the public would really find the federal process satisfactory, when only 1% of projects are subjected to a comprehensive study. I would be curious to find out. I would be pleased to carry out a poll of those who have used the federal process, and this is what I would ask, “Are you happy that only 1% of projects were subjected to a comprehensive study? That 99% were subjected to screening only. Do you agree with this? Do you feel the process is transparent? Do you think the federal self-assessment process is a good one?” I am sure that the results would not be the same.

Most of the people polled seemed satisfied with the process in Quebec. Most of them, 86%, felt that the commission lets them ask all relevant questions within a reasonable time limit. The first part of the public hearing makes it possible for them to gain clear and precise information on the impact of projects. Eighty-eight per cent of them say this is the case. For each of these two elements, 10% report that they are dissatisfied.

However, the proportion of those who are dissatisfied is higher with regard to the time provided for preparing briefs or oral presentations. It is 21%. Therefore, even though 21% of those polled expressed dissatisfaction in terms of the time provided for preparing briefs under the Quebec process, close to 80% are indeed satisfied.

Finally, satisfaction with regard to the inquiry and public hearing process is such that two out of five respondents think that it does not need any specific improvements.

Eight respondents out of ten, or 79%, totally or generally agree that the format and structure of the report make it easy to read, whereas 8% think the opposite.

I insist on these assessments, on these comprehensive studies as opposed to screenings—it is the terminology used by the federal government. In Quebec, they are called inquiries.

The annual number of public information and consultation mandates has gone from 15 in the 1980s, when the process was created, to 18 in the 1990s and to 25 in 2001-02. The average annual number of inquiry, public hearing and mediation mandates has also increased, going from 3 in the 1980s, to 7 in the 1990s and to 12 in 2001-02. There is also a steady increase in the number of mandate-days for information, inquiry and mediation periods, that number jumping from 1,543 in 1998 to 2,622 in 2001-02.

It seems clear to me that the federal government is trying to impose its process on Quebec when Quebec's own process is working well. This is my opinion and also one that has been widely expressed.

I also have to say that in committee we tried to have included in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as it is in Quebec's environment quality act, Quebec Crees' special status recognized under article 22 of the James Bay Convention that provides for a distinct environmental assessment process and system. That was one of the major demands of the Grand Council of the Crees, namely granting them this special status and recognizing article 22 of the convention.

The federal government turned us down. We tried several times both within the bill before us now and in committee—the issue of the environmental assessment was also reviewed in committee—I have been trying and I am still trying to have the James Bay Convention, especially article 22 on environmental assessment, recognized by the legislation and the federal government. Unfortunately, it is turning a deaf ear to us.

Finally, I talked about the 1990s, under the government of Robert Bourassa , and I also talked about the PQ government from 1994 until very recently. In a few days, we will vote on Bill C-9 at third reading. It is important to try to understand and see whether the new Quebec government has a different vision in this regard.

I believe we must take stock and try to understand what this legitimate new government, recently elected in Quebec, will favour and ask for. Will it back down on Quebec traditional demands? It might, and then again, it might not. We know very little since the environment minister was appointed just yesterday .

The only indication we have comes from the Quebec Liberal Party election platform.

The proposal from their document on energy says:

In order to provide for Quebeckers' electricity needs in the near future, we plan to reduce construction delays for hydroelectric projects by concluding a timely agreement with federal authorities to harmonize the environmental assessment process, or even delegate it to Quebec.

What the Government of Quebec wants is to reduce the waiting period when it comes to hydroelectric projects.

The past is an indication of what the future holds in store. Look at what this government has done with the environmental assessment process in the Toulnustouc project on the North Shore. It is important to remember that the interference of the federal government in the hydroelectric generating station on the Toulnustouc River in 2001 caused delays of several months on this key project for the region.

After reviewing the environmental assessment of the project, after public consultations in Baie-Comeau and Betsiamites, after 13 hearings involving some 650 people with 31 briefs having been presented, the BAPE gave the project its approval in June 2001. This hydroelectric power plant was going to generate employment for 800 people per year.

The federal government decided to enforce the federal process, skeptical of the BAPE's environmental assessment under Quebec's system, thereby delaying a sustainable development project for Canada, and also violating the principles of sustainable development, under which the economy, the environment and society are equally important. I think that the proposal of the current Liberal government, to have environmental reviews delegated to Quebec, is completely warranted.

I find this reassuring and I have the following observation. We have always and often been reproached here in the House for not understanding anything. The Government of Quebec was often reproached for not understanding the situation and for not wanting to cooperate or harmonize environmental measures, because it was a PQ government, sovereignist and separatist—as the members opposite call us. Now, we can see that there was not just the issue of the fiscal imbalance that the Government of Quebec could not agree on. The current Liberal government of Quebec does not agree on this issue either.

I am convinced that when the newly elected government in the National Assembly sees this bill and when it studies and evaluates these major amendments, it will be consistent with Robert Bourassa's position in 1992 and support the drive to patriate and have one single environmental review process for all projects. In the end, I am convinced that the new government will remain faithful to Quebec's past claims and to the best interests of Quebec, as all of the Governments of Quebec have done for decades.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on third reading of Bill C-9 which is a bill to amend the existing environmental assessment act.

In terms of understanding the context we need to have a bit of a review of the history of environmental assessment in Canada. That really began in the early 1970s by way of orders in council.

In 1973 the initial stage had no statutory authority, but over a period of the next 10 to 11 years we evolved into various pieces of legislation that ultimately resulted in the issuance of what were called environmental assessment and review guidelines and an order was issued pursuant to the Department of the Environment Act in 1984. The initial stages of the process were in fact, interestingly, given the sequence of what we see afterwards, determined by the government. These guidelines were not enforceable under any statute by the federal government.

Interestingly, the guidelines were being applied mostly in a voluntary manner, but then in 1989, with the Rafferty-Alameda Dam project in Saskatchewan, which was ultimately taken through the Federal Court system by environmental groups who were opposed to that project, it was determined by the court that those guidelines were enforceable.

Therefore, for the first time the government had to confront the reality that the Federal Court and ultimately the Supreme Court in a separate decision were determining that the federal government did have the legislative authority and had enforcement mechanisms available to it to apply environmental assessments in a meaningful way. It was a major step forward in the environmental assessment process in Canada.

In that period of time legislation was brought forward and ultimately passed. While that was working its way through the legislative process, the Supreme Court of Canada made a further pronouncement in this area on environmental assessments which was quite surprising to the federal government and certainly to the provinces. It was that those guidelines were, in fact, applicable to provincial projects so long as they affected federal interests. That decision was in 1992. In 1992 under the Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney legislation was passed. We had an election in 1993 and the legislation was not proclaimed by this government until 1995.

Contained in that legislation was a provision in section 72 that required a review after five years. As we heard from the minister today, the review was initiated in 1999 but did not get underway until well into 2000. Part of the process of the review was a requirement that a regulatory advisory committee be appointed.

If I can digress for a moment, it is interesting to look at what our experience was and what the regulatory advisory committee and the minister were confronted with. I pulled out a 12 month period of assessments for 2000-01. During that period of time there were 6,147 projects initiated that would have required an assessment.

Under the legislation there are various forms of assessments. The basic ones that we have referred to are screenings, comprehensive studies, and panel reviews.

The screenings are a summary process from within the department that is responsible for the project. Of those 6,147 that year, only one panel review was ordered. There were eight comprehensive studies. That leaves 6,138 that were done by the summary screening, a very small percentage.

The eight comprehensive studies require a more detailed review of the project. When that review is completed it is submitted to the minister, who then causes it to be published and gives interested parts of the community an opportunity to respond. Then ultimately the minister makes the decision. I should point out that there is no need for the minister to give any reasons or explanations for the decision made.

The members of the panel review on the other hand are appointed by the minister and conduct what everybody would see as an administrative tribunal type of process resulting in recommendations with explanations and reasoning supplied to the minister, who again ultimately makes the decision. That was the process. As I indicated, in that period of time there were few panel reviews and few comprehensive studies.

Over the entire period of the legislation, up to the time the review got to the environment committee, there were slightly less than 40,000 projects reviewed. Of that number there were nine panel reviews, less than 100 comprehensive studies, and there are three panel reviews still in progress.

I would like to note some of the reviews that were conducted. One of them, and the minister mentioned it today, was the Voisey's Bay project. The Sable Gas projects were reviewed. The Sunshine Ski Development in Alberta and the Canadian Millennium Pipeline project in Ontario were reviewed as were a number of other ones, all quite significant projects. However, what that list does not say is that there were also a large number of other significant projects that either did not get a comprehensive study, certainly did not get a panel review, and almost all of which went through the basic screening.

The one that I always point to in terms of its magnitude is the one project that would allow for the storage of radioactive waste on the Bruce Peninsula. When completed, this will be the biggest site in the world for storage of radioactive waste. That project did not require a panel review or a comprehensive study review. It simply went through one of those basic screenings.

The other project that I tend to mention was in Manitoba and actually crosses over into Saskatchewan. It was a forestry project that required a number of bridges and dams to be built that would have allowed the project proponent to develop the forestry industry in that region. Geographically that was a land surface that was to be significantly impacted from an environmental standpoint and was equal to almost 25% of the province of Manitoba. That project did not require, under the discretionary clause of the minister, a panel review or a comprehensive study review. There are lists that are much longer than the two that I have mentioned.

Where we are at when this legislation got to the regulatory advisory committee, or RAC, is that type of setting: 40,000 projects; 12 panel reviews, only 9 of which had been conducted; and less than 100 comprehensive studies. The proposed legislation, however, that they were given at that point was extremely narrow. It really did very little to allow them to make strong, comprehensive recommendations.

In addition to the framework within which it was forced to work, the committee did make a number of recommendations within that framework and a number of those were not even accepted by the department when the bill finally got to the House at first and second reading. It then worked its way through committee, but in confronting it, we in the NDP had three tests that we applied to it.

We asked whether it went far enough to protect our environment, and whether it strengthened or weakened the legislation. We concluded that overall, in spite of some improvements, it weakened the legislation.

The second criteria we applied was the process itself. Bill C-9 is designed to streamline and speed up the environmental assessment process. There are some good arguments as to why that should occur, but the process which would be instituted by this bill is designed entirely to benefit the proponents and developers of these projects, and not to protect the environment and the public.

The third assessment that we applied to the bill was whether it strengthened the ability--and we are talking here of transparency--for people, community members, NGOs, and sectoral interests to deal with the process. Was it more transparent and accountable? Was it more accessible for groups who may wish to know about the project and oppose it if they could get sufficient information as to its scope?

On the basis of all three criteria, this bill failed. As a result we will be opposing the bill when it comes for a vote at third reading.

The other point I would like to make is that there were a good number of attempts at amendments in committee. For example, the NDP proposed 50-some amendments and all the opposition parties proposed amendments, very few of which got through. The point I would make in this regard is that the bill is extremely limited. It does not deal with the basic problem that our environmental assessment process in this country is inadequate. The bill is about tinkering and a little fine-tuning.

One of the major amendments we wanted to deal with dealt with the issue of transparency and accountability. The law in the bill as it stands now would have no enforcement provisions in it. Bill C-9 would not have any changes in the law in that regard.

There were a number of amendments from the various opposition parties with regard to that issue. It was not just about enforcement. Let me use one example. One of the problems we often run into is that a proponent will actually begin work on a project. There is little that the government agency can do to stop that. It can issue some orders in the extreme, but it has no ability to enforce those orders.

We had made a number of proposals in that regard because it is a serious issue. Often, if the work is initiated before approval is given under the assessment process, it becomes a fait accompli. There is nothing that the agency can do but allow the project to go ahead because the trees have been cut down and damage already has been done to the environment, as well as any number of other consequences over which we have no way of penalizing the proponent who has broken the legislation. There is no way of enforcing the provisions of the legislation.

The other point though and again there were a number of amendments on this, was also requiring the government departments to comply with the legislation. We had repeated examples of the legislation being skirted, not being fully applied. Access to documentation was not given in compliance with either the letter or the spirit of the legislation. Again, there is no provision in the legislation to deal with that. The law in effect at this point does not require either enforcement or compliance and the amendments proposed to Bill C-9 will not require that enforcement in compliance. It is just one example of where the bill is so lacking.

The additional point I would like to make and I want to note this, is there are some positives in this but they have not been carried far enough. Again the minister in addressing third reading today mentioned extending the provisions of the bill to crown corporations. Unfortunately, that is not going to occur right away. Crown corporations are going to continue to be exempt for another three years once the legislation is passed.

The coordination that is being planned under this legislation in light of first nations environmental assessments is not clear enough. It was an attempt but it is not clear enough to really make that a coordinated effort between this level of government and first nations.

In summary, we have gone through almost exactly 30 years of environmental assessment at the federal level in this country. We were beginning to develop through guidelines in almost precedents the ability to begin to deal realistically and effectively with environmental assessments. The legislation in 1992 which finally became proclaimed in 1995, was actually a step backward when we look at what happened.

I want to digress for a moment in my summary. One of the things we have to appreciate is that the legislation because it had so few panel reviews was not able to develop a body of law. I do not mean rigid precedents as we have in some of our court systems but a general body of law that would have had experts in the area making decisions and recommendations to the minister but have those in writing as guidelines for the various departments which apply this legislation.

We do not have that. We have had nine reports and we are waiting for three more. We badly need to develop those guidelines so that individual members of the bureaucracy across this country will have a much clearer picture of what they are supposed to do when they are doing those basic screenings. We do not have that. I have to say we are not going to get this in this legislation, Bill C-9.

This is going to require, as Bill C-9 does, a further review. One can only hope that at that time the review will be more meaningful, that it will in fact encompass the whole of the legislation. I can forecast that we will see very few changes from the process that we have seen under the existing law. In three and five years from now, we will have to go back and do this properly and do a full review and get much more meaningful legislation.

In the interim we will obviously as a party be monitoring this but we will be voting against this legislation when it comes to third reading.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Jean, Highway Infrastructure; and the hon. member for Québec, Canadian Television Fund.

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

Madam Speaker, in 1994 the then minister of the environment and deputy prime minister moved second reading of a bill known as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. She described the legislation as “one of the most outstanding environmental acts in the world. With the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its important amendments, Canada will be a world leader in environmental thinking and practice”.

As Environmental Defence Canada, a national organization that was founded in 1984 and dedicated to helping Canadians protect the environment, noted in its submission to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, there were very high hopes for the future of environmental assessment when CEAA was proclaimed in force in 1995. It noted:

We supported its promises of increased access to information, increased public participation, and access to participant funding for citizens to become involved in panel reviews of environmental assessments.

More than five years later, Environmental Defence Canada was forced to conclude that CEAA was a staggering failure across Canada. Others who testified before the committee shared this view.

We heard from citizens about difficulties in even getting major projects reviewed under CEAA. The Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Caledon, consisting of more than 2,500 members, has been fighting to convince the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 1998 to apply CEAA to a proposed rock quarry project that has a planned extraction rate of up to 2.5 million tonnes of aggregate per year.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has acknowledged that this project will in fact result in the destruction of fish habitat unless effective mitigation measures are employed. The question is whether such effective mitigation measures are even possible in the first place.

Instead of commencing a comprehensive study pursuant to the regulations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has chosen to ignore the CEAA requirement that environmental assessment of a project be conducted as early as practicable in the planning stages of the project. Such a decision also flies in the face of the so-called CEAA coordination regulation providing that where a federal authority such as DFO receives a project description, it shall within 30 days of receipt of the information determine whether there should be an environmental assessment of the project.

Officials advised us that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not in fact trigger any environmental assessment of a project until after: one, it has received complete information on possible measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on fish habitat; and two, it has concluded that prevention and mitigation will not work.

As the coalition pointed out, this Department of Fisheries and Oceans practice is duplicative and inefficient. It makes no sense to assess mitigation options internally in order to determine that mitigation will not work and then trigger an environmental assessment process to review and study those same mitigation options. The current bill does nothing to address this triggering problem under the fisheries act.

We heard a number of witnesses complain about CEAA's failure to ensure that people get timely access to information. In particular, John Lavoie, a trapper living and working northeast of Thunder Bay, took the time to tell us about his difficulties in obtaining records relating to a CEAA screening of a proposed hydroelectric project. Despite over 20 letters and telephone calls to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, he did not receive any records prior to the conclusion of the assessment, the issuance of the authorization or the start of the construction.

Mr. Lavoie made the not unreasonable suggestion that a responsible authority must give the public an opportunity, just an opportunity, to examine and comment on a screening report and related documents upon the receipt of a written request for participation. I do not think that is unreasonable. The government has ignored this recommendation and we are sure to see more people frustrated by not getting the right documents at the right time.

The most distressing testimony and the clearest signal of CEAA's failure came from Norman de la Chevrotière, president of the Inverhuron and District Ratepayers Association. He told us about the association's fight to get a CEAA panel review of the world's largest above ground, high level radioactive waste storage site at the Bruce nuclear facility. He stated that the federal Minister of the Environment approved the project without a panel review, even though the association and others raised serious concerns about the health effects caused by the existing and future radiation releases at the site.

Mr. de la Chevrotière described it this way:

So when it came time to participate in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process, we thought this is a slam dunk. If anything deserves a panel review, this has got to be it. But we better not be complacent, we better participate in the process. We spent thousands upon thousands of dollars of our own money because we had no access to funding. We hired experts who uncovered a number of apparent inadequacies and uncertainties.

We weren't the only ones who were concerned: the local MP [the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound]; the local Medical Officer of Health; the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; Chippewas of Nawash; [and others]. It was overwhelming public concern in terms of asking for what we thought was something very reasonable, an independent and expert assessment. We didn't get it.

Later, Mr. de la Chevrotière concluded with the following plea:

If the world's largest nuclear waste storage facility, housing the most toxic and deadliest of all industrial waste products does not merit a panel review, what would?

I am here imploring this committee; I am begging this committee to please make changes to the act so no other citizen's group has to go through the ordeal that we went through. Projects of this scope and magnitude should be subject to a panel review and it should be mandatory. All relevant information has to be on the public record, and it should be guaranteed. I am asking this committee to please do that.

Put bluntly, we failed Mr. de la Chevrotière. The minister failed this citizen's group.

We could not help him because the committee was constrained from the outset to examining only those sections identified in Bill C-9. This constraint was justified on the basis that only the Minister of the Environment could dictate the scope of the review and changes to CEAA as set out in the legislative review section. Not surprisingly, the minister missed the concerns raised by people such as Mr. de la Chevrotière and declared CEAA to be fundamentally sound.

In fact, it is truly amazing that the Minister of the Environment could declare in his report that panel review is the core strength of the environmental assessment act. Yet he failed to appreciate that out of 30,000 screenings only one has been referred to a panel on the basis that significant adverse environmental effects were identified or that there was uncertainty about the significance of such effects.

If this is the core strength or the spine of the act, then we can only conclude that the environmental assessment act we have today is a spineless regime. As I will discuss in a few minutes, proposed government amendments will further erode opportunities for panel reviews. Any trace amounts of a spine in CEAA will likely vanish.

We were also prevented from seriously examining the core structures and features of CEAA to determine their effectiveness. For example, we had to ignore the issue of self-assessments, even though we were advised as a committee by some witnesses that an effective regime could not exist where departments conduct assessments and in fact grant the approvals of those very same projects.

We also had to pass on providing a definition of what a significant adverse environmental effect is in the first place. Second, we had to pass on ensuring assessment of cumulative effects, particularly on a regional basis were not taken into account. Third, we had to pass on building in powers for the agency to make enforceable decisions and impose penalties for non-compliance with CEAA. Fourth, we had to pass on providing for the strategic environmental assessment of proposed policies, programs and plans.

On that last point, members may be aware that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has already criticized federal departments for failing to implement the environmental assessment of policies and programs as required by a 1990 cabinet directive. The followup 1999 cabinet directive also has not been applied, thus highlighting the necessity of introducing a compliance mechanism into CEAA itself.

More than one witness told us that the failure to include any enforcement provisions in CEAA renders it toothless and of little effect. CEAA is like a jellyfish of environmental assessment regimes, toothless as I said earlier, in fact spineless.

Notwithstanding the restraints on review, the committee did make some improvements to Bill C-9. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight those.

Government accountability has been improved with the requirement under new section 16.3 that the responsible authority must document and make available to the public its determinations with respect to screenings and comprehensive studies.

For the purposes of facilitating public access to records and providing notice of environmental assessments, there will be an expanded registry consisting of an Internet site as well as project files. Under subsection 55.1(2)(a), a notice of commencement must be posted on the Internet site within 14 days of an assessment commencing.

The committee provided additional accountability by including a paragraph, subsection 55.1(3)(e), that information included on the Internet site would have to be posted at least 30 days before any decision could be taken by a responsible authority, the minister or the agency.

The committee also fought hard to close a very glaring loophole that permitted crown corporations to avoid the necessity of conducting environmental assessments. This is what we asked the private sector to do.

While CEAA originally contemplated bringing crowns under the act pursuant to regulation, the government had failed to act except in relation to port authorities. Now in this bill, because of an amendment done by the committee, there is a statutory requirement that regulations be passed within three years bringing crown corporations under CEAA. During this period the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has undertaken to appear before the committee to give progress reports on the development of regulations.

I am very heartened by Mr. Connelly and Ms. Thompson, who I am sure are listening very attentively to this speech and other speeches that have been made in the chamber this afternoon. I am heartened that they will be taking the time to visit us in committee to let us know how those regulations are coming along over the next three years so that we can avoid a last minute rush to put regulations in place as a result possibly of missing a deadline.

The committee also put in place a legislative review mechanism that would not repeat the mistake of letting the minister dictate the scope of the review. Within seven years after Bill C-9 receives royal assent, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of CEAA shall be undertaken by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as may be designated. Perhaps then, and probably only then, will we be able to adequately address the concerns that Mr. de la Chevrotiere pleaded for our committee to address.

It must also be noted that the Liberal majority on the committee did manage to block some key attempts at improving the bill itself.

Presently, under CEAA, the minister has the power to refer a project that has been subjected to a comprehensive study to a panel review. If there are further questions about a particular project after a comprehensive study has been done, the minister today has an opportunity to move it to a panel review. In fact this has happened one time before after benchmarking our 30,000 screenings. According to witnesses, this has had the effect of causing proponents and responsible authorities to better comply with the requirements of a comprehensive study in the first place.

Now under section 21.1, once the minister refers the project to a comprehensive study, it may not, even if there are other questions down the road, subsequently be referred to a panel review. The minister has intentionally tied his hands so that he will be no longer accountable for not answering further questions. He will be able to say that his hands are tied and that he is restricted by what the act is. This is a glaring mistake. There will not be any proponent or responsible authority that would willingly conclude that a comprehensive study will not suffice.

During the course of the committee review, I introduced an amendment to provide for a panel review. Our national parks are our most valuable treasures in terms of protecting our ecological integrity and we should have a higher regime when it comes to them. I know the Minister of Canadian Heritage once shared that same opinion as well.

In the amendment I proposed that if a project might cause a significant adverse environmental effect on a park, or on a park reserve, or on wildlife that frequents such area or on the air affecting such an area, it should be reviewed by the panel review. The amendment was tailored on an undertaking that the minister publicly gave following the receipt of a report on the health of Canada's national parks. As a result, I expected this amendment would enjoy sufficient Liberal support to be passed. After all, it was a concept espoused by the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage. Stunningly, most Liberal members refused to assist the minister responsible and the amendment was not carried.

As with the Species at Risk Act and other environmental legislation, the government has been unable to respect and accept amendments made by the committee. However I will tip my hat because it was more constructive and more willing to do work at the report stage this time than it has in the past, by negotiating common language.

I would like to highlight one reversal that I think is a mistake. In particular the government felt the need to roll back the provision that documents be posted on the Internet at least 30 days before any decision was taken to 15 days. Provincial governments, including the government of Ernie Eves and Mike Harris, have say that 15 days is fine. I do not see why the federal government would have to go to a 15 day component.

Also, it is not clear what kind of information will be posted on the Internet itself other than a mere notice of commencement. In other words, the public will likely have a difficult time ascertaining what is being assessed, the scope of the assessment and other factors relating to the decision. It is hard to understand why the government will not allow citizens the opportunity to review documents on which environmental assessments are based before decisions are taken.

Given the failures of CEAA and the government imposed constraints on the review of it, the committee has been left to draft another report that addresses the major deficiencies of the current environmental assessment regime raised by witnesses and other members of the public.

It poses this question. Ten years on is the federal environmental assessment making a significant contribution to sustainable development and a healthy environment? The answer today is no. Canada is not a world leader in environmental assessment. The committee report that will be tabled in the House in the coming weeks we hope will address those inadequacies. After this report has been tabled and the minister considers what is in the report and we review CEAA with the mandatory review, maybe then and only then will we be able to address the concerns that have been espoused by Mr. de la Chevrotiere.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reference to the unedited copy of Hansard which we sometimes refer to around here as the blues. The reference today is in regard to a question from the hon. member for South Shore heard by almost all members of the House because there was subsequent laughter. It had to do with the gender of an individual.

The question that was posed said, “Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just told the House he never spoke to” and it says in the blues “Dr. Brundtland”.

Clearly everyone knows Mrs. Brundtland and everybody knows that earlier today the person was referred to as “Mr. Brundtland” which provoked the laughter in the House of Commons. The blues as I see them in front of me do not reflect that. The word “Mr.” that all of us heard is now “Dr.” and that is not what we all heard.

I hope by the time the final version of the blues appears that Mr. Speaker will have had the opportunity to review the television replay of it which I understand some staff members have just done moments ago and clearly have heard again what all of us heard before we all burst out in laughter, and it was clearly the words “Mr. Brundtland”.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too was in the House when the member for South Shore posed his question. Without question, the terminology, whether it be “Mr.” or “Dr.”, could well be interpreted. However the government House leader knows full well that the blues are given to individuals to make necessary changes, perhaps that have not been heard properly. As a matter of fact, I can probably come up with a number of examples of members of the government side who have obviously changed the blues previously. If the hon. House leader wishes us to present those to you, Mr. Speaker, to make your ruling, then I would be more than happy to do so.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there were over 200 members of Parliament in this place when the interchange took place. I would like to say that the Prime Minister did respond to the question and the Prime Minister's response would be bizarre if the wording were changed to reflect the change that has been suggested from the Tory caucus. It is an inappropriate change to make.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The Chair will take the matter into deliberation. The blues and the video will be reviewed. If changes are to be made, they will be made then.

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