Margaret Bridgman

[Reproductive Technology, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 a royal commission was formed to inquire into the area of new reproductive technology. This commission spent four years on public hearings, research, opinion surveys, and consultation with a wide variety of groups.

In 1993 the commission published its two volume, 1,300 page report, making 293 recommendations. While it has been over a year since the release of this report, the government's belated response has been a promise for further discussion.

What is required now is action, not more discussion. That is why with the assistance from six of the commission's recommendations I have submitted a private member's motion on the issue of foetal sex testing for non-medical reasons.

I urge this government to follow my example and act upon the recommendations of the committee in order to prevent further commercialization of reproductive technology.

[Petitions, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 176 residents and draws the attention of the House to the rise in youth crime, the lack of deterrents and accountability in the Young Offenders Act, the fact that the Young Offenders Act does not address the rights of victims and encourages the recruitment of youth by adult offenders, and that the present sentencing provisions of the Young Offenders Act ignore public support for tougher laws.

The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to urge the government to review the Young Offenders Act and address three principles: the deterrence of the offender, the accountability of the offender, and the rights of the victim.

[Petitions, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

The first petition is signed by 189 residents and warns that the justice minister is proposing unfair anti-gun legislation that will do little if anything to reduce violent crime in Canada.

The petitioners feel that this legislation will simply restrict or eliminate the rights of honest law-abiding hunters and target shooters. The petitioners request that Parliament call on the justice minister to bring forward proposals that will enable the police and courts to deal quickly and firmly with perpetrators of all types of violent crime.

[Justice, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of criminal responsibility in cases of extreme intoxication has been receiving a lot of attention lately.

Nicole Hilliard from Surrey wrote the following:

I am sure you are already familiar with the man from Alberta who went on a 30-hour drinking binge, then beat his wife up and was acquitted due to his mental state.

I ask: "Did anyone force this man to consume a bottle of rye, vodka, and several bottles of beer?"

If someone consumes too much alcohol, gets behind the wheel of a car, then kills someone, you can guarantee that no court in Canada would decide to acquit that person based on his or her drinking.

If this law is not changed we will see more and more individuals acquitted because criminals in Canada have avoided responsibility time and again thanks to the outdated criminal justice system. Laws like this one are completely unacceptable and insulting.

Reformers will continue to stand up for the rights of victims and push for changes to our justice system.

[Decade Of The Brain Act, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the bill. I commend my colleague for London West. I have listened to the debate today. We have discussed the intricacies of the brain. We have also discussed numerous illnesses of the brain.

The brain is indeed a very complex organ. Attention should be given to the brain. I feel strongly that we are not aware of how important the brain is to us. Everything we look at, everything we do, every philosophy we have has been generated by the functioning of our brain. It is an extremely important organ and we know very little about it.

My colleague from the Bloc commented on the mapping of the brain. It was not long ago that we thought memory had a specific location in our brain. Experiments that have been done on Parkinson's disease have shown that one can have very small

sections of the brain stimulated and suddenly start singing the Coca-Cola song or something.

We now realize that the brain is functioning like the rest of our body based on chemical components. It is the chemical structure of our body that allows messages to pass through the synapses, making us function and do things that we think are very important to our lifestyle and to build the societies we need.

We talk about brain disorders. Someone here previously mentioned that five million Canadians are suffering from brain disorders. It was also mentioned that a considerable amount of the health care dollar is spent on conditions involving the brain, which is true, but this does not seem to be a situation that is going to go away rapidly. We do not cure a condition of the brain in six weeks like we do a fracture of the arm or some other bone.

Disabilities of the brain can vary from very minute kinds of behaviour pattern to extreme disorders. We really do not know why this is happening. It is very essential that we look at this organ and try to understand it so we can better understand our own lives.

For example, in my background of psychiatric nursing I have had the opportunity to witness and work with people who are totally incapable of dressing themselves. They do not know how to put on their pants. They will stick their arm in the pant leg. On the other hand, the particular young man I am thinking of could be given questions like: "What is the total of 2,925 plus-?" One could go on and on with a list of figures. He could have the answer by the time one was finished saying what the figures were. Yet here was a man who was totally incapable of functioning in any other way. All that was required to get his mathematical mind going was the bribe of a cup of coffee. He was very serviceable in the accounting department and that seemed to be his role. Those were the days before computers.

The other thing we tend to think about is the human brain. We have to also consider what has happened over the years in relation to our awareness of animal brains. We are now looking at the possibility of not being the only species that is capable of thinking. There is a tremendous amount of research being done on dolphins. We are gradually becoming aware that other animals do indeed communicate. This is something that has come about because of some people's awareness of the brain, its intricacies, its unknown powers, et cetera.

We do not actually know what we are capable of doing. We hear people talk about having a sixth sense, ESP. Some of us think that we know what that means; some of us do not. Some of us are very capable of carrying that out. Obviously there is a mechanism in our brain that could be developed along this line. Again, we do not know because of lack of research or whatever.

Also with regard to awareness, we seem to be more aware of the mysteries and the wonders of outer space, for example. That can be common coffee table talk in restaurants or wherever. Yet we do not even know the capabilities of our own brain or our own head, our capabilities of what we as a species can do. We wonder about outer space and this kind of thing. We are more aware of that than what actually makes us who we are. Nothing that we have achieved to date would be here were it not for the capabilities of our brain, and yet we still do not understand how it functions.

A few years ago schizophrenia was thought to be, and some aspects of schizophrenia are still thought to be, a behavioural disorder. Through research it has been discovered that there is a physiological situation involved in our bodies that creates some diagnoses of schizophrenia.

Another tremendous condition affecting us today in our present lifestyles is depression. We really do not know why we get into the various states of depression, yet we have all kinds of drugs and all kinds of people taking these drugs for depression. We are rapidly moving into a situation in our society where we are going to have a pill for everything. You can probably change your personality if you just start taking medication.

We realize that the brain is totally dependent on the chemical constitution of its environment. We also realize that it is very very subject to trauma. There have been situations in which trauma has occurred and we do not understand why. It is not only trauma. It can be stroke as well. Certain people are left with aphasias. These conditions can differ as well. Some people can say only half a word. Some people know what they want to say. For example, they know it is an ashtray but they cannot remember the name so they say "something to put your cigarette in". This is debilitating for them in their existence. We do not know how to help them help themselves.

I strongly advocate that the decade of the brain, and I realize that we are about halfway through it, be recognized. I think that our awareness as a species is inadequate. I would also suggest that it not only happen once in a lifetime but that it happen probably once every hundred years, if it is going to take this kind of legislation or this kind of awareness to make us aware that we do not know very much about ourselves and what we are capable of doing.

[Justice, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Community Safety and Crime Prevention Week. It has special significance for me and my constituency of Surrey North because of the many tragedies that the community has experienced in the past few years.

The list of victims keeps getting longer: Jesse Cadman, Sian Simmonds, Laurie Wood, Linda Williams, Chris Lussier, Paul McDaniel, Graham Niven, Sukhjit Sangha and now Pam Cameron.

It might be expected that tragedies such as this would sap a community of its strength. Instead the people of Surrey have been galvanized by these tragedies and have become proactive in preventing further misfortunes. Community groups such as CRY have sprung up and have been able to turn the anger of individual citizens into a constructive group trying to change our justice system.

Let this week become a constant reminder of the need for legislation conducive to establishing and maintaining a constructive and co-ordinated partnership involving the laws, the enforcers and the citizens.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to reiterate some of the comments my colleagues have made and possibly some new ones on Bill C-55.

As we are aware this is the third component of the package in relation to the Yukon First Nations Land Act claims settlement and the Yukon First Nations self-government. This particular bill is essential for the effective implementation of the other two acts. It mainly addresses the federal government's legal requirements to facilitate these other two acts coming into force.

This bill is to establish a board of directors that will handle disputes that occur. These disputes could involve three different components. They could involve owners of settlement lands or owners of non-settlement lands and of course businesses that would be involved. There are three components the board will be facing in relation to disputes. The other main aspect of this board is the determination of compensation in relation to the expropriation of settlement lands.

The orders of course from this board are binding. The board is not going to address disputes unless the two parties or three parties involved have tried to come to some sort of a mutual agreement before this. Should that not occur it will come to the board. Therefore, the board is actually in an arbitration kind of situation and its decision will be binding. Except for limited reasons, it can go to the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory.

This brings us to the structure of the actual board which I have some concerns about. I realize that my colleagues have touched on some of this, but I think they are important enough to reiterate to some degree. Clause 8(1) of the bill gives us an overview of what the board will consist of: a chairman and not less than two members and not more than ten other members. That would make a possible total of 11 members including the chairman. All these members would be appointed by the minister.

There are some conditions that apply on these appointments. Clause 8(2) indicates that the minister must establish a board of an odd number. That I would assume includes the chairman so that the board would also consist of an odd number of members.

Clause 9(1) indicates that the chairperson is appointed by the minister but on the recommendation of the board. Clause 9(2) addresses the other members. It could be up to 10 members. It indicates that half of those members would be appointed by the minister based on nominations from the Council of Yukon Indians and the other half would be appointed by the minister. It does not indicate where the nominations or the suggestions for those appointments would come from.

To round this up, clause 10(1) indicates that a majority in both of these components, those nominated by the council and those appointed by the minister, must consist of members who reside in the Yukon Territory.

What this to my mind does is put the board in a position of being two components, one being suggested from the Council of Yukon Indians and the other from the minister, wherever those suggestions may come from. This in itself may divide the board. Also, the chairman of the board who is appointed based on recommendations from the board could put the balance of power on the board in either component. For example, if the chair was someone who was appointed by the minister then the bulk of the members on the board would be members appointed by the minister. If the chair happened to be someone who was a nominee from the Council of Yukon Indians then the balance of power would be on that side.

I question why the chairman has to be appointed by the minister based on the recommendation of the board. To my mind that suggests a veto power by the minister. It would seem that the board could elect its chairman instead of making recommendations to the minister to appoint it.

The other concern that comes out of that composition would be the right or opportunity for patronage appointments. Another concern would be that somewhere in the bill I believe it says that disputes do not have to be handled by the full board. We can subgroup the board into panels of three or more and handle the disputes based on that. Again we will look at the composition of the panel. Having these two components on the board, what is the composition of this panel and how they are selected is a very grey area.

Another way of looking at the composition of this panel could be from a representation of the players involved, i.e. the three components: the businesspersons, the owners of non-settlement land or the owners of settlement land. One could possibly pursue having representation of these three components. Another way of looking at it would be representation from the two components, the membership from the Yukon council, or those appointed by the minister. That is a very grey area.

The fact it does not indicate how these panels are composed or selected is also something that should be addressed possibly at committee. It could be based on members available at the time. It could be members in town at the time or whatever. Again it could become a lopsided membership based on these two components.

Another point that comes up would be term of office of the membership. Either clause 12 or 13 indicates that a member can stand for any number of terms. The appointment is for a three year period and then you can run again. There is no limitation. You can run for this as long as you are appointed and it can be any number of years. That in itself may not be a problem but it should be looked at to see if there are any parameters or situations that may pose a problem.

I would like to offer some suggestions on board membership. Again one of my colleagues mentioned that appointments, if that is the route we choose to go, should be made on merit or some criteria other than just being appointed by the minister. There should be some criteria in there. If that becomes the case we would definitely like to see merit included.

Another way of looking at it would be to possibly elect this board as we do school boards or something along those lines. That brings up of course that we may have to have candidate qualifications so that all sides have representation depending on how you wish to look at it.

It does not necessarily indicate that the panel composition would indeed be three members. It could possibly be any number of members, but of course it cannot exceed 11 which would be a full committee. It also does not seem to indicate that the panel would be an odd number. That should be looked at as well.

Another thing to look at is the concept that this board will be independent from government. The way it is structured it certainly does not imply that is going to occur. Two main things come out that are very suggestive it will not be independent from government. Unless you get into the fine print of it or whatever and really search for a method as to how it is independent these two things come front and centre.

One is that if it is funded by the government and if all the members on the board are appointed by the minister, i.e. government, that certainly does not suggest the board is independent of government. That in itself also brings up a number of possible concerns in relation to one's membership on the board. If the minister has this kind of power to appoint or not appoint then one really does not want to be in the position of opposing the majority opinion. I think one would rather tread lightly if they wanted to continue to participate on the board.

Therefore we may in a way be inhibiting some members in participating in full debate in relation to disputes or compensation or whatever they are addressing. I see that as a potential problem. There may be some inhibition on membership participation. I would take that a step further in relation to membership and possibly clarification in these areas might help.

Clause 11(3) indicates the minister can remove for cause. It starts out that one can hold their membership on the board for good behaviour. There is really no qualification as to what good behaviour is. The minister can remove that member for cause or-not and, but or-on grounds set out in the bylaws of the board.

What is happening is the board can be controlled from ministerial appointment, depending as I say on what background the chairman has and can set up what is grounds for membership. It appears that the minister for cause-and I do not know where this cause is coming from, if it is going to be a set of rules and regulations, but I think clause 18 makes reference to that and that implies to me that the board may be setting up what constitutes cause. It is very, very vague. I was first and still am of the opinion that cause is for the interpretation of the minister. That area is rather loose as far as membership is concerned.

The other thing that is missing which should be included would be some sort of recourse if one is found to be in that position where membership is going to be or has been revoked. There should be some sort of recourse for an unbiased hearing into the circumstances of it.

Some tightening up is needed in those areas. Many of the clauses seem to be all-encompassing and a lot is left to assumption.

In the part that deals with meetings, one clause caught my attention immediately. That was the one that said participation in these meetings could be by telephone or some other communication device. I strongly advise when this bill goes to committee that we address the issue of having people attend the meetings in person versus a telephone conference in which there is perhaps one member sitting in the room and everybody else is on the telephone somewhere in the Yukon territory. There should be some indication as to what a quorum is for attendance in person at a meeting.

A second very restrictive clause is where the meetings can be held. I believe it states they can be held in Whitehorse and/or other areas of the Yukon. I agree that is the most sensible area in which to hold meetings as that is the area it is related to but there may be cause to hold meetings elsewhere. If we are going to look at the letter of the law, which seems to be how our justice system is looking at things these days versus the spirit of it, I suggest that we open that one up a little bit so that meetings are not only held right in that area. That is what that clause suggests.

Much of what I am saying today is clause by clause analysis of the bill which will come up in committee, but those are some of the points I wish to highlight. A number of my colleagues have come up with the same types of points and I think that speaks for itself that there is some concern in those areas.

The last item would be the statement of accounts. I did not get the impression there would be open access to these accounts by the public. I got the impression they would be well documented, that there would be a very good system of accounts, that the appropriate people would do them, that they would be reviewed by the Auditor General, and so on, and submitted to government. However there is no reference anywhere for access to these accounts on request.

With that I will close my remarks. Under the circumstances we realize this bill is the third part of the other two and it is necessary for this one to pass. However, in the composition of the bill there are a number of things that we should tidy it up before we actually put it out as the third part.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. There are two possible approaches. First, when that program is actually put in place so that we can have that input in the panel from the community it becomes a component of the whole program and should be incorporated in the budget of the total program. It is not an additional program in itself. It is not an add on. It is part of the whole program and should be budgeted accordingly in the overall program.

Second, we are back to good old Reform policy and ideals, that is grassroots input. We firmly believe it is essential for the people in the community affected by the project to have access to express themselves to the committee. Again it should be formalized or structured access. That could come up in the process of how the input would come about. The whole program should be budgeted in total.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I agree with what he is saying. I can sympathize with his concerns.

When I was researching it myself it became very obvious that particular section of the bill was very vague from the actual process point of view. There does not seem to be any direction as to how that will actually transpire. I assume the results will be debated and discussed in committee.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I would first like to make a few comments on our environment in a general sense. First, environment has a special meaning in my constituency of Surrey North. Surrey is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada. It has grown and expanded in recent years because of both immigration and migration. The immigration is mainly Asian and the migration is mainly people from the Vancouver area.

The constituency of Surrey North is a mixture of urban and rural with the urban increasing at the expense of the rural. That alteration along with the population growth and business expansion has caused concerns and greater awareness of the environmental impacts. That desire is truly tested by an explosive population growth.

One characteristic of the people of Surrey North and indeed the people of the west coast is the desire to preserve the natural climate and the environment as best they can. Numerous environmentally oriented projects are apparent in the daily activities of west coast citizens. A heightened awareness of the importance of environmental concerns is demonstrated through more and more presentations and/or questions being asked by citizens on such things as air and water pollution, the long range effects of cutting our trees, right down to their participation in recycling programs.

Second, another environmental concern is that the wild animals are losing their homelands due to the human population explosion and the effects of meeting our own needs for survival. Only our parks are destined, probably within the next century, to become homes for our wild animals unless we change our ways.

The British Isles would be a prime example of this. A couple of centuries ago large animals such as moose and bear roamed on that land through great stands of trees. Somewhere along the line lumber gave way to bricks for building the human dwellings and the moose, the bear, the large cats and other animals that were there gradually became thought of as being indigenous to North America.

Another example of the abuse of our environment seemingly for our need for survival is in the early days of our explorers, Jacques Cartier's time for example. During that time it was recorded that the fish were so plentiful off our east coast that his crew had a tough time getting the oars in the water to move their dinghy forward.

Today we are all aware of the present situation on the east coast where the stocks have been so depleted that the economic foundation and livelihood of a region has been seriously changed, perhaps forever. Not only is there an economic impact, the fish themselves are possibly close to being an endangered species.

Another example would be Easter Island where thriving civilizations cut trees to build homes and move great stone statues. Soon there were no trees left. The homes are no longer, the statues are stationary, and the once thriving civilization is all but gone.

Balancing the wants of people with the capabilities of the environment is a challenge which all communities must face. It is a challenge which people from Surrey have met so far. The industrial expansion of the past few years has not as far as we know had a negative impact on our environment. Surrey is a community that disproves the notion that industry necessarily hurts environment.

We must realize as a nation that we can have a thriving economy and a healthy environment at the same time. That is the sensible approach of the Reform Party. Our blue book states support for the concept of "sustainable development" because "without economic development and the income generated therefrom the environment will not be protected or enjoyed".

What Reformers recognize is garnered from what most Canadians recognize: the importance of the environment to our livelihood as a nation; the importance of the natural resources it provides for our economy and well-being; the variables of the vast geography and sometimes harsh climate that we must encounter; and the preservation of the pure beauty of the natural environment which never ceases to amaze us and visitors to our great nation. This we must preserve.

At the end of the last sitting I drove from Ottawa to Surrey. I was taken aback and awestruck by the absolute beauty and astounding diversity of our country, from the hills, trees, and unique rock formations of northern Ontario to the wide open prairies of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, through the majestic Rockies and down to the scenic beauty of the west coast. If you are able to ignore the areas of clear cut and look past the smoke billowing from some factory or mill, the drive across our country is an experience all Canadians should share. Only after a drive like that does one realize the magnitude, greatness and potential of our country.

We must always strive to maintain that close link between people and their natural environment in this country and continually improve our understanding of the earth itself and our effects upon it. We are as individuals much more aware today of our environment and the effects our actions can have upon it. We are also very aware that the various levels of government are actively involved in the decision making process for many of these very actions involving our environment.

Bill C-56 including the three amendments is a small step forward at the federal level to enhance the process of achieving these decisions. It would be helpful first to take a look at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act itself.

The act requires the federal government to study the environmental impacts of a whole range of projects that until now have escaped public scrutiny. Environmental assessments have been done in the past and have not carried the weight they should in the making of the final decision. Economic considerations have had the tendency to rank higher in importance in the decision making process.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act creates the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. This agency replaces the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. This office was criticized for being costly because of overlap and duplication and for being inconsistently applied. Replacing one office with another may not in itself improve the situation

but the review and revisions and upgrading of the regulations governing the agency's role could very well be the key to an improved performance. The failure of the federal government to provide clear guidelines led to court challenges of high profile projects such as the Oldman River dam in Alberta and the Rafferty-Alameda dam in Saskatchewan.

Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act four types of environmental assessments are available to meet different projects and circumstances. One would be screening, two would be comprehensive study, three would be mediation, and four would be a review by an independent panel.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was a bill proposed and passed by the former Conservative government. However the act once passed was never proclaimed, meaning that it never came into force.

In the red book the Liberals promised to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act "to shift the decision making powers to an independent Canadian environmental assessment agency subject to appeal to the cabinet". That is on page 64 of the red book.

On October 6, 1994 the government issued a press release stating its intent to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The reasons for the Conservatives not proclaiming the act that they passed may not be known for certain, but a reasonable guess is because of the wrangling among the industry and environmental groups and among federal and provincial bureaucrats and politicians over the act in general and certain regulations in particular.

The former and present Quebec governments opposed this act. The former Liberal environmental minister for Quebec, Pierre Paradis, appeared before the Senate in an attempt to block the bill. And I understand that the present environmental minister for Quebec is publicly opposing the proclamation of this act.

On this issue one must sympathize with the federal government, for two reasons: first, that the citizens of the country want the federal government to be active in the protection of the environment; and second, because the environment is an area not outlined in the Constitution under federal and provincial jurisdiction. There are to date no clear guidelines for the federal government to follow in this area.

The federal government must play an active role in the protection of the environment and develop clear effective guidelines for environmental issues and concerns. The Reform Party recognizes the need for federal leadership in this area.

Also the new Liberal government has made changes in the regulations of the original act and has proposed amendments to try to satisfy the concerns of some groups. One change in the bill is the dropping of the controversial provision that would have forced environmental reviews of energy exports. This change was apparently welcomed by the oil and gas and hydroelectric industries but criticized by environmental groups.

With regard to the federal-provincial jurisdiction, the federal Minister of the Environment is able to develop co-ordinated environmental assessment procedures for conducting joint panel reviews, thus preventing overlap and jurisdictional conflict. The Reform Party supports the co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments on environment action. We support the reduction of duplication, confusion and unnecessary regulation by developing and applying environmental criteria through a joint federal-provincial process.

The present regulations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act divide the project into four categories: a comprehensive study list; a law list; an exclusion list; and an inclusion list.

The comprehensive study list describes those types of projects that must be assessed through a more detailed study. The law list is a list of licences, permits, certificates and other regulatory authorizations which are required for certain projects. An environmental assessment would be triggered in this case. The exclusion list describes those undertakings in relation to a physical work that do not require an environmental assessment. The inclusion list relates only to those projects that are a physical activity not related to physical work. It occurs when a federal agency issues a permit or a licence.

At the same time that the government announced its intention to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act it announced its intention to bring forward three amendments to the act. These amendments comprise Bill C-56.

One amendment is to legally entrench the participant funding program which is an amendment to section 58 of the CEAA. This allows for intervener funding for public participation in the review process. I agree that public participation should be encouraged as long as the funds come from within the current department allocations or budget.

Another amendment is to section 37 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It requires a cabinet decision to respond to the recommendations of independent environmental assessment panels. Previously this decision was made by the minister only. By making it a cabinet decision opens it up for more debate and scrutiny and makes the decision process much more democratic.

The last amendment amending section 24 of the CEAA confirms the principle of one project, one assessment in the act. This aspect of the bill is very encouraging. It addresses the possibility of numerous environmental assessments being done by the various federal departments involved and now groups all that into one assessment.

One project, one assessment makes for logical reasoning as well as indicating some fiscal responsibility and some consideration as to more efficient implementation of the project's timetable. Instead of each department involved, for example, industry, transport, environment, et cetera doing its own assessment over a period of time a panel or committee is struck with representation from all departments to participate in one assessment.

This amendment should alleviate the concerns of business to require permits from several federal departments. Under this amendment instead of businesses facing multiple reviews they would be subject to only one federal assessment. Also this principle of one assessment should lower the cost compared to having to do several assessments. Another benefit would be to speed up the process of implementation of the actual plan. Participants would not have to wait for several months or years for all the assessments to come in.

An improvement on this process would be to bring provincial representation in on the same assessment committee. This harmonizing would prevent the possibility of federal and provincial assessments contradicting each other. It also provides for one assessment, not one at the federal level and one or more at the provincial level.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate two of my previous statements. First, our environment is of major importance to us and concerns relating to it should rank high in our decision making process. Second, Bill C-56 is definitely a small, progressive step forward in achieving this end.