CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 145 Ï NUMBER 031 Ï 3rd SESSION Ï 40th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, April 22, 2010 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 1827 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, April 22, 2010 The House met at 10 a.m. [Translation] OLD AGE SECURITY ACT Prayers Mrs. Carole Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-516, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (application for supplement, retroactive payments and other amendments). ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce this bill, Ï (1000) which would increase the guaranteed income supplement paid to our [English] poorest seniors and ensure that pension benefits are paid to individuals whose spouse or common-law partner has died. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS The Bloc Québécois believes that the living conditions and dignity Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of of seniors are not only major issues for society but are also matters of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, social justice. pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions. Since income is the most important determining factor in a *** senior's well-being, we, as a society, must ensure that our seniors have a decent income that enables them to participate fully as CRIMINAL CODE citizens. Hon. Jay Hill (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. *** (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) Ï (1005) *** [English] INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS BILL C-9—JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) moved: the House, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canadian delegation of the Interparliamentary Forum of the That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it have the power Americas, FIPA, respecting its participation at the meeting with to divide Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, into two or more pieces of the General Secretary of the Organization of the American States; the legislation. 19th meeting of the FIPA executive committee held in Washington, D.C. on June 23 and 24, 2009; and the sixth plenary meeting of the She said: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to my motion, first Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas held in Ottawa, Ontario, tabled before the House April 20, 2010 and today. September 12 to 15, 2009. Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Why have I moved this motion? The pattern and practice of the Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in government to institute significant legislative reforms under the both official languages, the following report of the Canadian NATO cloak of budget bills has been loudly criticized by the Canadian Parliamentary Association, NATO PA, respecting its participation in public. This is the second time that the government, during this the Political Subcommittee on NATO Partnerships held in Parliament, has chosen to make major changes to the environment Washington, D.C., U.S.A., from October 14 to 16, 2009. through a budget bill. 1828 COMMONS DEBATES April 22, 2010 Routine Proceedings What has caused such broad consternation is the fact that the The amendments under part 20 provide for the transfer of subject area of at least one part of Bill C-9, part 20, is by law responsibility of the CEA agency to the National Energy Board and required to be referred to a parliamentary committee for compre- the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for any comprehensive hensive review this year; the fact that the parliamentary committee study of projects under their purview, so it is a broad policy on environment and sustainable development has already agreed to assignment of power. undertake this review. and that this review is scheduled to commence within weeks; and the fact that the same law requires the committee to report back to Parliament on its review and any recommended Of concern to me is the fact that the National Energy Board has changes within a year of completing that review. apparently already posted on its website that these reforms are already in legal effect. The CEAA requires the minister to establish a There is a clear intent expressed by legislators: of who is charged participant funding program, while Bill C-9 reforms really grant the with reviewing changes to the bill; the process to be followed and, in discretion to the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety other words, an open participatory process to review any legislative Commission to consider establishing participant funding. changes; responsibility already taken on by the parliamentary committee; and that the review is likely to be substantive. For these reasons I am recommending that the finance committee, having been Of greatest concern, Bill C-9 also exempts a broad category of charged to study Bill C-9, be empowered to consider dividing the federally funded projects from environmental assessment, regardless bill. It is my recommendation to the House that it consider of the significance of their environmental impacts. The minister may empowering the finance committee to split the bill. reverse the exemption if significant impacts are identified. It hardly provides for the legal certainty that the government promised in its Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for throne speech. Outremont. The very title of the budget implementation bill makes clear the Ï (1010) narrow thrust of Bill C-9. It is entitled “Jobs and Economic Growth Act”. Projects that would be exempted include: the building Canada While a good number of provisions of Bill C-9 arguably fall fund, the green infrastructure fund, the recreational infrastructure within the purview of a budget implementation bill and that narrow fund, the border infrastructure fund, the municipal rural infrastruc- context, under the rubric of jobs and growth, I submit a number of ture fund, and on it goes. Bill C-9 also changes CEAA to grant the parts of Bill C-9 clearly do not. Counted among those are: part 18, minister broad, undefined discretion to narrow the scope of any which is about the reorganization of Atomic Energy of Canada environmental assessment or, in other words, allow for the Limited; part 19, amending the National Energy Board Act and the introduction of inappropriate, potentially political considerations. Nuclear Safety and Control Act to allow for participant funding; and in particular, part 20, which brings forth substantial amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Concerns about this provision have been voiced strongly by a I wish most specifically to speak to parts 19 and 20. These parts number of sectors including first nations. In particular, first nations provide for significant reforms to the federal environmental are concerned that their constitutionally protected rights for advance assessment law: procedures and critical rights. To provide a context, notice, consultation and accommodation may have been violated by the legislative purposes of the Canadian Environmental Assessment bringing forward these amendments without first contacting them. Act include: to ensure projects are considered in a careful and precautionary manner in advance of decisions to ensure they do not I might add that the government appears to also be failing to cause significant harm or adverse impacts; to ensure coordination adhere to its commitments under the North American agreement on among federal authorities; to ensure communication and co- environmental co-operation, where it is obligated to provide advance operation with aboriginal people; and to ensure opportunities for notice and opportunity to comment to anyone in North American timely and meaningful public participation. who may be impacted by such reforms. The amendments strike at The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that the the very heart of the federal process negotiated among all interests government minister, the CEA agency and all federal authorities over past decades. The reviews could have gone to the regulatory exercise their powers in a manner consistent with protecting the advisory committee, which the government has not brought together environment and human health, and observing the precautionary for the last year and half. principle. No such similar broad duties can be found either in the NEB Act nor the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. In summary, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review The CEAA does allow the Minister of the Environment, on a includes a review and reform process. It prescribes who is to project-specific basis, to assign environmental reviews to other undertake that review. The matter has already been taken up by the bodies, but with conditions that there be identical factors, as Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, considered under CEAA, and equal public participation rights. What one of the two bodies provided in law that may take on such a study. the government has proposed in the bill is hardly equivalent and a The parliamentary committee has already scheduled public hearings major step backwards in participatory rights and opportunity. on this matter, which will proceed within weeks. April 22, 2010 COMMONS DEBATES 1829 Routine Proceedings It appears, therefore, logical and respectful to empower the Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of finance committee to split its review of Bill C-9 and to delay review Finance, CPC): Mr.