Debates of May 14th, 2004

Bob Mills Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, I was answering a question. I did not have an opportunity to answer it.

If we can think back to what the questions were, they were about public consultation. The parliamentary secretary had indicated that there had been enough public consultation. I am just going by the government officials that we heard who had said they had not consulted with the public on these amendments.

I also wanted to let him know that in talking to several lawyers, there were two international acts that they believed this bill would contravene. These were acts that the Canadian government had signed. He had indicated that it had been taken care of but obviously it had not.

He made reference to the fact that the million dollars would apply for a duck hunter who took two extra ducks. What a foolish thing to say. Obviously, had we been allowed to put amendments forward, we could have covered off the duck hunters and the person who takes an extra trout. We could have covered them off.

We are talking about companies, ship owners, and big ships dumping oil in the ocean. To introduce the concept of duck hunters being fined if we had a minimum fine, I really do not know what he might possibly have been smoking to come up with an answer like that. Not to impugn anything on him, but that is pretty ridiculous.

Finally, he said there were no concerns. Well, if we did not consult the public and we did not consult the constitutional lawyers and international law, there are questions.

We support the bill because it is really our legislation that we wanted two and a half years ago. It is great legislation, but why bring it in so late? Why bring it in when the Senate has been shut down and the Senate cannot approve it? Why would the government do this and let the Senate go home so that it cannot become law?

Those were the points to clarify the answers to those questions.

Paul Crête Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to this bill, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that, when ships cause environmental disasters, we have a mechanism that would alert all ship owners and users so that other environmental accidents can be avoided. We have to avoid disasters like the Exxon Valdez oil spill or any other situation that might not have as great an impact but still has an adverse effect on the environment.

As early as the second reading stage, the government had support from the opposition and the various parties to pass this bill as quickly as possible. What is surprising however is that closure was invoked in committee and no witnesses could be heard. Representations were made, for instance, by representatives of the Shipping Federation of Canada, SODES, which is the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, and Ducks Unlimited, who have serious environmental concerns. These people would have liked to express their views on some of the provisions of the bill that might need to be improved or amended.

Clause 9 will be my only example. It sets the maximum fines for anyone responsible for an ecological accident involving a ship. No minimum is set, however,

Members of the committee would have liked to have been able to make representations for setting a minimum fine, so that a clear signal would be sent to companies that this is unacceptable and carries a very heavy fine. This would have conveyed the message that every possible means must be taken to avoid such accidents.

During the debate, the parliamentary secretary indicated that he had a reason for this, and that it was to save individuals from having to pay huge fines. This is the sort of thing that ought to have been debated during the parliamentary committee meetings. Had it been, we could have reached a conclusion, based on what we heard there, to have a certain level of fine for corporate bodies and another for individuals. By so doing, we would really have achieved the desired result, which is to make companies clearly aware that they will have to assume responsibility for environmental accidents and that, if they do not, they will be hit with a very substantial fine.

This bill will certainly give rise to a considerable amount of case law. Representations will be made in this regard. If the conclusion is reached that the fines are too low, depending on the approach taken by the judge and on the situation, the opposite message to the one originally intended may be conveyed. What we want to make very clear to people is that we want to invest in prevention, and that doing so will be cost-effective, because the fines are very much a reality and a single accident will result in a very hard hit financially. If the fine imposed is insignificant, it sends the message that everybody can continue as before.

So we would have liked to discuss this in committee. The bill has not been hanging around for months; I believe we started to look at it last week. It moved to committee very quickly, but there were no witnesses. Why such haste? It is true that it is important to pass a bill on this, but why in such a rush? Why was it not introduced a year or more ago? I see a connection with the election deadline.

Several months ago, a fine of $120,000 was levied against CSL, formerly owned by the Prime Minister, for having discharged ballast off the coast of Newfoundland. Following this blot on the record of the companies he ran, the Prime Minister wanted to find a way to deflect the response. Suddenly, it became important to pass a law, after it was discovered that the company had been convicted and that there was a black mark on the record of the Prime Minister's companies.

Despite this situation, the bill must be passed. We all know the importance of avoiding environmental accidents at sea. I represent a riding along the St. Lawrence River; one of its notable features is the Île du Pot-à-l'eau-de-vie, where there is a magnificent eider duck site that deserves to be protected, as it has been for a number of years.

We must all work together to ensure that these situations can be avoided, and that this kind of accident does not recur. Moving forward must be our goal.

I would like to recognize the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, our environment critic, for all the work he has done. Today he is being recognized for his environmental concerns. He has also become a resource person for all Quebeckers who want to see progress, whether on the issue of GMOs or the widening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, with all the ecological repercussions that entails. In my opinion, the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie is a very competent and effective spokesperson in all the various sectors involved.

Personally, I would also have liked the bill to address more than environmental accidents at sea. We are discussing amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. In my riding, there are problems with the disappearance of the bird sanctuaries covered by this act.

Perhaps this could have been an opportunity to put more teeth into the bill to ensure that consumers are protected in that situation and that hunters and people who use natural spaces for ecotourism can do so to full advantage. We must avoid the current situation; sanctuaries are being eliminated, even though there is no need to do so.

We must ensure that the legislation is strong enough to protect us in this regard. However, this is not the case in the bill, because, in the rush, the government targeted only one element to rectify. Also, there could have been something in the bill to improve the way the government compensates farmers who are penalized by movements of migratory birds that eat what they have planted on their land.

There have been complaints on this for a long time, particularly in the region that I represent. Indeed, we had to fight hard to receive adequate compensation. It would have been appropriate to more forward with this bill to include more provisions in this regard.

Consequently, we wish there had been the same desire to act quickly on the employment insurance issue. Unlike this sector, a committee of members of this House had already tabled a recommendation three years ago. It was a unanimous report in favour of a real reform of the employment insurance program. This reform never became reality.

With regard to migratory birds, the committee did not make any prior recommendations, but a conclusion may be drawn very quickly, because there was an order from the Prime Minister's office—this is quite obvious—to find a way to hide the truth about what happened in the incident that led to CSL's being fined $120,000 for dumping bilge water off Newfoundland.

Finally, this bill ensures that there is additional protection. Probably in the coming months and years, the government will realize that the absence of real work in committee has led to holes in the legislation and it will be forced to correct it. This is the sad reality.

Despite all, between having no legislation and having this one, it is better to pass this one and to allow it to come into force as quickly as possible.

My colleague was lamenting the fact that the Senate will no longer be sitting. It is all a matter of dates. It will depend on the date the election is called by the Prime Minister. However, if my colleague really wants this bill to be adopted, I hope that he will not hide behind the fact that he would have had the House of Commons adopt the motion in the full knowledge—this would really be cynical—that it would not be adopted by the Senate because it would not be sitting.

I think that there is a possibility that the Senate will sit next week. Let us make sure that the bill is adopted because overall, it is a situation that should be corrected. We have to send a clear message to the shipping companies and let them know that we are promoting a zero tolerance program, that there will be full prevention and that this will allow us to prevent environmental accidents at sea.

As I was saying earlier, such an accident has major consequences at sea, but the consequences would be just as bad in the St. Lawrence estuary and on the other Canadian coasts.

It is important that the bill go all the way. However, it should not be an election ploy. We have to change the current situation to ensure adequate protection and to meet the objectives of the bill, not just the Prime Minister's electoral objectives.

I would now like to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting this bill that would help to significantly improve the situation.

Joe Comartin Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, like all parties in the House, the NDP supports the legislation. I suppose the hypocrisy of the situation is that since the 1970s we have worked in this area on the need to buttress the laws that we have to protect the environment around the Atlantic coast in particular.

The problem we have today is that we have legislation before the House, an almost empty House, on the verge of an election.

Earlier this week the government was actually trying to convince our party and I think some of the other parties that the legislation had some chance of getting through both the House and the other chamber before the election was called. We can see the absolute unlikelihood of that happening in that everybody knows the election will be called between this coming Sunday and the next, and that the Senate has already adjourned. It has gone.

There is absolutely no chance for this legislation to pass, in spite of the representations by the Minister of the Environment or his department and the government generally, even though environmental groups have desperately wanted the strengthening in this legislation for decades.

It was interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary today when, in response to some criticism from one of the other parties, he said that they did not want to put it off for another year, when in fact that is what they have done. This legislation, which we badly need and which we have needed for a long time, will not go anywhere.

In preparation for today I went back and looked at some of the material coming out of the government. We were talking about this problem in 1971. A study was done from 1994 to 1999, more than five years ago, by the same department telling us that we are losing 300,000-plus birds every year. That is no surprise.

Even though we had a lot of information that preceded that study, during that period of time the study clearly identified the cause: oil was deliberately and with full intent being dumped by ships off our Atlantic coast.

The government's attitude, in terms of the its lack of responsibility for this problem, is that the U.S. government moved on the problem a number of years ago. The reason that is so significant is that ships coming in from other parts of the world knew that if they went into U.S. waters and did what they were doing in Canadian waters they would probably be caught and be heavily fined.

What happened, big surprise? The ships did not bother waiting until they got into U.S. water. They dumped their bilge into Canadian waters, which is why the problem is so bad for Canada.

The Atlantic coast is a major shipping area. Ships move into the area from all over the world, combined with major migratory birds moving through the same area. It is a cataclysmic type of circumstance, and it has been heightened by the fact that the U.S. moved on its legislation much more appropriately earlier than we did, leaving the owners of those ships, their captains, people directing the ships, the opportunity to dump their bilge in our waters, off our Atlantic coast in particular.

We are faced with the reality that we are going to have another year, and we do not know how many more, of the government, should it get re-elected. The reality is that it has not dealt with it.

I could not help but think, as I was preparing my comments today, about what would have happened if we would have had a different administration. I want to pay particular tribute to the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the member for Davenport, for all of the tremendous work he has done.

I wonder what it would have been like if the member for Davenport had been the environment minister during the current Liberal administration from 1993 onward. I can say with some degree of certainty that he would have had this legislation before the House a long time ago. The only criticism I have of the member is that his government probably would not have supported him and the legislation probably would not have gone through the House. However he would have pushed for it, and that is to his strong credit.

The environmental community, across the maritimes in particular, has strongly pushed for this legislation. All of the parties are in support of the legislation. It would increase the fines and it would make it easier for us to get convictions, which has been a problem in the past.

The one concern I have with the legislation is its administration. Services will need to be put in place to make it possible for the public service to enforce the legislation but I do not see any commitment on the part of the government to put additional resources into play, both in terms of staff and equipment, if the legislation is going to be used effectively.

However it is definitely a step forward. The tragedy of course is that it has come so late. We will not see this legislation again until we come back in the fall, and we only know by way of speculation what may happen at that point.

The NDP support the legislation and would very much like to see it in place.