Rick Laliberte

[Committees Of The House, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Monday, May 25, 1998, be concurred in.

I would like to take this opportunity to make my colleagues in the House of Commons and all of our citizens in this wonderful country called Canada aware of a most crucial report that was tabled by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The third report of our committee was entitled “Enforcing Canada's Pollution Laws: The Public Interest Must Come First”. The report was tabled on May 25, 1998. This being Environment Week, it is a most crucial time to bring this to the forefront and to apprise all of our members of the details of this committee report.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development proceeded to study the enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the pollution provisions under the Fisheries Act.

There were 24 recommendations. These are the highlights of some of the recommendations.

It is most crucial that the Minister of the Environment provide the committee with amounts budgeted and actually expended for inspections, investigations and prosecutions related to the enforcement of CEPA and the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act and, also, that any report prepared for the review process of the department in relation to enforcement be provided to the committee.

The committee also recommended that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans develop and publish a comprehensive enforcement and compliance policy in relation to the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act within six months of the tabling of this report.

It recommended that the Minister of the Environment ensure that the regulated parties are informed of their legal obligations under the federal environment laws and that such laws and regulations continue to apply and that they must be observed.

There are many instances in which agreements are made between provincial jurisdictions and federal jurisdictions which fail to highlight that federal legal obligations are still in tact.

The committee recommended that the new CEPA legislation, Bill C-32, enable inspectors and investigators to be designated and given the full powers of a peace officer. Bill C-32 is now being reviewed under the House process. Our inspectors and investigators who are out in the field have little power to issue fines, aside from creating warnings and starting the prosecution process.

Also recommended was that the minister establish without delay a professional intelligence gathering and analysis capacity. This is most crucial because pollution affects our communities, our health and our families. We must therefore establish an intelligence agency among police officers like the RCMP, the provincial police and the customs officers who control our border crossing.

There was also a recommendation to have whistleblower protection for anything dealing with federal obligations. We have many labour groups working in our ports, our manufacturing companies and our industries who may be aware of infractions and must therefore have whistleblower protection in order to protect their careers. There will be instances where they must extend their authority and highlight the infractions that their company or their employer may be inflicting on our environment. This is a most crucial recommendation that challenges this government to consider.

The minister should revise the current structure of enforcement and establish regional branches and that the decisions not made by officials having managerial functions must be made by members of the enforcement personnel. Enforcement decisions must be made by enforcement personnel, not managerial or political decisions.

Another recommendation is delaying the signing of the proposed subagreement on the enforcement under the Canadian council of environment ministers. Under the harmonization accord that was recently signed there was a subagreement called enforcement which was supposed to be introduced later. We strongly recommend that this be delayed because the present enforcement structure and the federal responsibilities presently are not being complied with.

The minister should publish all enforcement data relating to CEPA, the Fisheries Act and the manganese based fuels act. All these must be published for the media to scrutinize for the public's interest and for leaders and politicians in the legislatures of the provinces, the territories and the House of Commons to scrutinize the abilities of the enforcement of this country. These environmental laws are most crucial for the future health of our children.

The minister should be required to publish and table officially in parliament a detailed annual report on the enforcement actions taken in the previous year relating to all the laws and regulations of Environment Canada mandated under CEPA and the Fisheries Act.

Presently we hear instances that the fisheries minister is required to table the report here in the House of Commons and has not been able to because the provincial governments have not been able to give him the data. The harmonization accord has many holes in it. If these different levels of government cannot be involved in providing a report to the House of Commons there is something drastically wrong with the relationship we have with the provincial departments.

Another major recommendation that challenges this government and the environment minister is to conduct an indepth study to determine whether methyl mercury released in the aquatic environment as a result of the creation of reservoirs, dams and hydro projects in the great rivers of our northern regions is accumulation in the fish and the food cycle. This must be realized because under the CEPA regulations mercury is considered to be a natural substance and not a human induced toxin into our environment. However, because the building of dams increases mercury in our food system we need to have an indepth study on how to address this issue.

The most important recommendation that the minister is challenged to seek and the Government of Canada grant is more resources to ensure proper enforcement on the environment legislation. Time and time again witnesses who were questioned in committee said there was a lack of resources as a result of cutbacks from program reviews one and two. These were financial reviews, not environmental enforcement reviews for the protection of our environment. These were reviews to see where cutbacks should be properly made, surgically cut for the financial wellness of this country. We see the financial well-being of this country. We see an exuberant amount of surpluses in programs that previously were in deficit. Now is the time to draw a priority and consider the environment as a number one priority, especially in this beautiful country.

The introduction of the report and the recommendations are a result of public meetings held from February 18 to March 26, 1998. The committee heard various witnesses from industry, from aboriginal peoples, from labour organizations, environmental groups and government officials, numerous submissions from stakeholders from across Canada.

In this consideration we would like to note the bravery and congratulate the field staff members of Environment Canada who came out and were honest in their perception of the challenges they face in their daily operations as inspectors, as investigators in enforcing the CEPA regulations and the fisheries regulations.

The key points in the report which are highlighted are Environment Canada's enforcement responsibilities and the need for effective enforcement, enforcement problems under federal-provincial-territorial agreements and involving the Canadian public, which is the most crucial aspect of the report, the public's right to know and the public's right to the protection of our environment.

I draw to the attention of the House a book that was most crucial. A quote from this book is that citizens of nations should have a bill of rights. The charter of rights and freedoms of this country should be considered to include environmental protection so that we are free of the poisons and the toxins of the many industries that indiscriminately induce these toxins and pollutants into our water, our air and our land, the very nature of the life we are going to depend on for future generation.

In context we have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That is our bill of rights. That is what defines the protection of our environment. But the act is useless if it is not enforced. Without a police officer system on a highway, who is going to keep track of the speed limits? Who is going to keep track of the traffic infractions? Who is going to keep track of all the violations that take place from day to day without the volunteer aspect that we expect from our citizens? The CEPA regulations and this recommendation from the committee highlight that enforcement is a crucial aspect of the protection of our environment.

Under CEPA there are 26 regulations that deal with PCBs, ocean dumping, clean air and water, CFCs, dioxins, furons and fuels. All these issues deal with every constituency in this country. All members of parliament should be aware of the implications, of the inability of the government and the department to enforce these laws.

Under the Fisheries Act we also add fish habitat, the rivers, the lakes, the oceans and the coastlines. We have the drastic results of the Atlantic fisheries and the decline in our fish, the Pacific coast, the changes in our environment, the protection of the fish species and the very economy that depends on it. A total of 32 regulations fall under CEPA enforcement and the fisheries.

In recent times there have been seven equivalency and administrative agreements with the provinces and the territories. Three are specifically under CEPA and two under the Fisheries Act. One of them we highlight is Quebec, federal pulp and paper regulations, a major agreement between federal and provincial jurisdictions.

The Northwest Territories is defining a framework agreement in the five regional offices that comply with the enforcement and the interpretation, the Atlantic regional office, the Quebec regional office, the Ontario regional office, the prairie and northern regional office and the Pacific-Yukon regional office. These regional offices play an important role. In some of the data we were provided with, between 1996 and 1997 there 701 inspections under CEPA, 53 investigations were conducted, 2 directions, 28 warnings, 5 prosecutions and 7 convictions. In some cases investigations had begun in previous years.

In Fisheries Act data for the same year there were 778 inspections, 25 investigations, 1 direction, 8 warnings, 5 prosecutions and 6 convictions.

I highlight the major topics of the report, including the need for effective enforcement and limited resources as a result of the program review of the environment. Environment Canada has realized a 40% cutback in its the financial budget. There is also a loss of the Fraser River action plan that deals with the west coast. The Fraser is a major river system. The Pacific-Yukon budget has been cut by 30%. This cut was effective on April 1. Five hundred and fifty average inspections are expected to drop to three hundred and eighty-five as a result of the cutbacks. The cuts have a definite impact on enforcement. Vacant positions are not being filled, existing workloads and work expectations are insurmountable.

There are issues of climate change and a need to research and collect data on the state of our environment and our fish habitat. But the workload and the expectation is based on the existing workload which has been cutback by 40%. In the Quebec region alone, 60% of its enforcement budget is actually used for enforcement. We must direct these resources to where they are needed. Existing vacancies in Quebec have been left unfilled for as long as two years although it is one of the most industrialized provinces in Canada.

Poor information supplied to the committee by the department is a major highlight. We are still waiting for information from the department that was requested by our committee. To date it has not materialized. No on really knows how bad the situation is. No details are brought out on the enforcement versus compliance promotion and other activities. Two inspectors in Ontario provide four to five days per company to verify the national pollutant release inventory, a new international compliance. We are making international commitments to do inventory on our national state of pollution but our workload is being carried by the existing staff. In B.C. areas, including non-industrial impacts, there are approximately 17,200 possible sites for a total of 16 staff.

Entire sections of CEPA are not being enforced in Canada. We are trying to juggle and hope industry does not know much about the unenforced regulations and that Canadians believe the protection of our environment is of utmost importance. But we cannot assume. We must make sure enforcement of this law is taking place. Fifteen inspectors in the prairie region cover an area roughly 50% of Canada's land mass.

In 1992-93 there were 1,233 inspections concerning CEPA by inspectors, 93 investigations, 105 warnings, 2 directions and 22 prosecutions. By 1996 the situation deteriorated. We were down to 97 warnings, 15 prosecutions, no directions and no convictions, a clear reduction in environment presence and in regulatory enforcement.

The deputy minister admitted at committee under intense pressure of questioning that there were inadequate resources in terms of environment enforcement. A KPMG survey highlighted that the voluntary measures expected from companies are inadequate, about 16% efficiency compared with enforcement and regulatory compliance measures where 90% will comply.

This government continues to promote voluntary measures. In many areas of the report, there is a lack of resources, a lack of enforcement and also a lack of real harmonization between the provinces.

There is inadequate responsibility of reporting to parliament on the infractions to the fisheries habitat. The provincial regulators and enforcers are supposed to provide this information to the fisheries minister. He has still not been able to provide this report to the House of Commons for all the public in Canada to know. He is legally liable.

The agreement between Quebec and Canada on the application of federal pulp and paper regulations was highlighted. There were 20 infractions in the same year that this was re-signed and renewed and no prosecutions were instituted.

More alarming was the aquaculture memorandum of understanding between DFO and New Brunswick. In that area there was rampant disease and marine pollution. Pesticides were dumped to control an aquaculture problem but the natural environment was being compromised as a result.

In 1997 Ontario pulled out of its agreement with DFO to enforce fish habitat protection. The existing enforcement officers out of the Ontario region are expected to carry out what the province of Ontario is supposed to be doing.

Existing resources have been cut back. The expectations have increased and this report is a major highlight. We must address the enforcement of our environment and pollution protection of this country.

I beg that this House understand the implications of this report and the challenge for this government to make the environment a number one priority, especially this week which is environment week.

[Motions For Papers, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 12, I asked the Minister of the Environment if Environment Canada had sufficient resources to fulfil legal responsibilities and to enforce regulations contained in the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The minister replied that his department had sufficient resources to deal with every element of environmental protection under the current act. The standing committee was contrary in its findings. On February 26 Environment Canada's deputy minister responded to committee questions by indicating that the environment enforcement program lacked adequate human and financial resources.

The standing committee report entitled “Enforcing Canada's Pollution Laws: The Public Interest Must Come First” raises concern that crown liability for failure to enforce environmental legislation may lead to actions against Environment Canada for regulatory negligence. It also highlights the need for more human and financial resources.

The environment minister stated on national television that there had not been recent cuts to the environment enforcement program. Following the interview Canadians could read the figures for themselves.

In 1995 there were 28 investigators to protect Canada's environment from pollution and assorted environmental impacts and infractions. Today there are 17 investigators or a loss of 11 investigators.

The environment minister stated time and time again that the Liberal government provided the highest environmental standards for Canadians. It is a convenient answer when opposition members call the government to account for the deterioration of environmental standards across the country.

The Canadian public does not know the critical state of Canada's environment. Most Canadians would be shocked to learn that entire sections of CEPA are not enforced in some provinces.

The minister re-signed an agreement with Quebec to monitor pulp and paper effluents. The next day it was reported that at least 20 infractions were not being enforced in that province.

Most Canadians would be shocked to know that the entire CEPA budget for Atlantic Canada above salaries and operating expenses is $150,000 for the region.

The Pacific-Yukon region where 16 people are expected by the government to cover an approximate 17,200 possible sites where federal regulations may apply will lose a third of its budget this year.

The government has more parking enforcement officers on Parliament Hill than there are six field inspectors for the entire prairie and northern region, an area larger than Europe.

Before the program reviews which slashed an estimated 40% from Environment Canada's budgets since the Liberal took office, an internal Environment Canada report recommended 300 enforcement personnel would be needed to protect our environment. In reality today there are fewer than 70 people.

The environment minister stated the benefits of voluntary compliance and reporting programs. Canadians should know that report after report has stated otherwise. Voluntary alone does not work. Industry complies when federal regulations are applied.

We are not saying there is a lot of bad apples but there are a few that require monitoring. For instance in this wonderful land we call home, Canada, the harsh climate does not allow us to leave any window or door open without compromising everybody's comfort or safety.

The standing committee received numerous presentations from Canada's environment community which concur that voluntary programs are insufficient for environmental protection. Why would the minister continue to pursue a policy that people in her own department stated does not work? Who is the government trying to protect?

A lack of leadership and political will was highlighted—

[Environment, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the National Forum on Climate Change reports many immediate steps can and should be taken to respond to the Kyoto commitment and to address the issue of climate change.

The contribution of these distinguished Canadians, Order of Canada recipients, are to be congratulated. They have studied the issue and reached a decision: act now.

The commissioner for the environment's annual report described the Liberal government's failing grade on the environment and especially in the climate change commitments. The report included references to a lack of leadership and political will. The lack of action on climate change could be disastrous.

The finance minister stated yesterday that the environment is very important. As the environment commissioner said, lots of talk, but little action.

Canadians are fed up with the Liberal environment failures on CEPA enforcement, climate change, harmonization, pesticides, POPs. As Canada's distinguished citizens stated today, enough talk, more action, act now.

[Carbon Dioxide Emissions, May 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking on Motion No. M-38 submitted by the hon. member for Davenport, that in the opinion of the House the government should as part of a global effort to minimize climate change, develop a strategy in reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Canada possibly by 20% based on 1988 levels by the year 2005.

I commend my hon. colleague for his efforts to bring this debate to the House. It is very timely. Next week delegations from Canada and throughout the world will be gathering in Bonn, Germany in preparation for the Argentina talks that will take place in Buenos Aries in November. COP-4, as it will be deemed in Argentina, will decide on many of the major initiatives the nation states of this world can make toward reducing greenhouse gases.

As the New Democratic Party representative on the standing committee, it has been an honour for me to participate with the hon. member who serves as chair in the dialogue on greenhouse gases. The committee set out directions for our negotiators in Kyoto to emphasize a solid foundation for long term emissions reduction and to initiate public education and engagement in activities by the public, research and development, science and technology, and to make sure there is cost efficiency when dealing with emissions trading or joint implementation, that it is not just window dressing for greenhouse gases for industries to buy their way out of trouble.

Another major issue is that we need quick start initiatives immediately. That was also a contention of the environment commissioner. Those have not started at all. There could be cost shared basis projects, pilot projects for communities and municipalities, major research projects with industries and institutions of higher learning and engaging with developing countries on joint implementation issues.

These two major topics were a challenge and a major test for this government. My hon. colleague mentioned that his party platform was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. I believe the Progressive Conservatives took that position. The Bloc advocates major reduction targets of up to 20%. The New Democratic Party advocates a 20% reduction target.

The only party that still will not take this test is the Reform Party. It will still not admit that greenhouse gases will have a major impact on our society, our world and our way of life. Its bottom line is still dollars, what it will cost.

The provinces have to acknowledge that there will be costs. There will be a cost for the impacts associated with addressing the greenhouse gas emissions issue. But the issue is one of transitional measures. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia have been dragging their feet in coming alongside this because an industrial transition is involved here.

As Canadians and as citizens of the world we should take this challenge. In the test we have gone through this week, the environment department is a battered department. It should be taking the lead. A secretariat for dealing with climate change was recently established and two ministers were appointed as its co-leaders. Only one minister should take the lead on this issue for Canada. It is a sad fact that we should take on ourselves collectively as Canadians and as a government.

If we target to 2005 the 20% reduction, that is a major reduction within seven years. In seven years there is a measurable target we can take. In that measurable time we should be bringing on our youth, our children, the future generations, the people of the new millennium, the people we are going to leave our state of the nation with.

We should have our young people out there, empower them to be a conscience to our way of life. Why are they not knocking on the Bank of Canada's door every night when the Bank of Canada leaves its lights on 24 hours? Why are they not knocking on government department doors to be a conscience?

In the headlines we read of language officers in the province of Quebec being conscious about protecting their language in businesses, advertising and with the people of Quebec. Why could we not do that and empower our youth right now who are in dire need of employment?

We could do it this summer as a quick start initiative. We could send our youth to senior citizens homes. They could install R-40 or R-60 insulation in ceilings, put second and third panes on house windows to keep the temperature cool inside in the summer and the warm air inside in the winter. Let us do it now. Let us empower our children now. Let us empower our youth. Let us challenge ourselves.

Let us challenge ourselves as the hon. member mentioned and not abandon our railroads. Our railroads are the cleanest form of transporting goods in this country. The railroads were designed to unite this country from coast to coast. There is no northern railroad that connects the third coast or along the midportion of Canada. It only connects the southern portion. We cannot be selfish in that way.

We can talk of the whole issue of sinks in the equation of emissions trading, deciding how much our country has created in emissions. We deduct the sinks so our land use policies, our reforestation policies have to come into play. We must reforest immediately the vast tracts of land which have been left bare. If man can cut the trees down, man can grow the trees. Let us do it.

The farmers and our agricultural community do not know the impact of what greenhouse gases and the future of the Kyoto agreement could have on their industry. Let us be fair, honest and forward and talk in a language that is not beyond anyone's terminology. Let us be open with the media. There should be public dialogue. There should be a public exchange. A secretariat should be formed immediately and be open to the public. I do not even know where they are on Parliament Hill. They have to be active now.

We made an agreement in Rio de Janeiro that should have been started, enacted and completed by the year 2000. Nothing is going to be done about it. We know we have failed on that measure.

Let us take the Kyoto agreement and take the challenges as the hon. member for Davenport has done. Let us raise the height of the bars and improve ourselves and look at the impact. I challenge the Reform members, I challenge the provinces, I challenge anyone who questions this issue to look at the impacts to the permafrost in the north.

As the permafrost falls and the heat rises in the northern regions of this country, the permafrost will no longer hold and bind the biomass and the soft soils will erode. As the heat rises in the glacial areas in the northern regions, heat deflects off of white and when the white glacier melts the heat will be attracted to the darker ground and the vegetation under that glacial melt.

The national action program on climate change has to be invigorated with a multi-department initiative not only by NRC the odd time when it is politically correct. We need the power of the Prime Minister behind this whole initiative. As leader of this country we need the Prime Minister's office to take a lead on this most drastic issue that is going to have an effect 100 to 150 years from now. We are going to generate a huge impact on our grandchildren in a higher climate and a higher economic travesty we will not even know.

Unfortunately there is no time to continue and I am only half way through my speech. I put my weight behind the challenge that the member for Davenport has stated and and the Kyoto deal that this government and all the nations of the world have signed. Let us take on the challenge, the transportation challenge, our lifestyle challenge and let us empower our youth and create jobs by doing it.

[The Environment, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister's responsibility to protect the health and safety of Canada.

The environment commissioner warns that inaction will be disastrous. The lack of resources and measurable targets will lead to an accumulative deterioration of our health and ecosystem.

Will the Prime Minister rise today and commit human and financial resources to revive the integrity of our environment? It takes guts to restore a gutted department.

[The Environment, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government's failing grade on the environment reflects on the leadership of the Prime Minister.

The environment commissioner warned that if the performance does not improve, the environment and our health will be threatened. Yet the environment minister seems to be unwilling to make substantial changes.

How does the Prime Minister expect that this problem will be solved if the environment minister does not even realize there is a problem?

[The Environment, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Overall this government's environmental leadership got a failing grade from Canada's environmental watchdog. Canada is threatened by pollution. We will not meet our international obligations in climate change and our environmental assessment process is not working.

Does this failing grade reflect on the competence of the minister or is it a failure shared by the whole cabinet?

[The Environment, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again the environment minister was asked about the state of Canada's environment: budget cuts, staff cuts, bad policies and devolution.

The committee report on CEPA enforcement and today's environment commissioner's report confirm that basic standards are not being met.

Will the minister continue to dismiss the facts and ignore the truth or will she admit today that there are insufficient resources for the environmental protection of this country?

[Regional Development Agencies, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on February 23, I asked the Minister of the Environment which departments will be stopping hazardous waste dumping in Ontario sewers.

At that time I raised my concerns shared by many Canadians on the minister's assurances regarding the harmonization accord and the continuing decline of environmental protection across the country.

The minister's response as recorded in Hansard included: “We will assure all members of this House that we are following through with our supervision, inspections and maintenance of standards”.

Program review one and two led to losses in financial and human resources which have devastated a once respected department.

The growing concerns over global warming, pollution prevention and community health issues are of prime concern to Canadians. The majority of Canadians believe more should be done to protect our environment.

Environment Canada's own internal report identified a need for over 300 staff to provide adequate environmental inspections, enforcement and protection. Yet the minister is comfortable with 60. The minister defends this policy and the lack of enforcement and protection as sufficient.

I would like to draw attention to another issue, ASD, alternate service delivery. Canadians have witnessed examples of this failure policy through NavCan, food inspection branch and Ports Canada; bad ideas, poor service and Canadians at risk.

Now the Liberals wish to continue this policy with components of the atmospheric sciences branch. This is at a time when our major trading partners are increasing funding to atmospheric sciences. Canadians across this country have stated time and time again do not close more weather stations, where are the up to date storm alerts, and why do they have to pay for weather information as taxpayers.

With this conscious abandonment of fiscal excuses coupled with the continued devolution of environment duties and responsibilities through ill advised harmonization accords with the provinces, this Liberal government approach will lead only to further degradation.

How can Canadians be reassured on the protection from hazardous waste dumping when there is little proof that Liberals care about our environment?

[Foreign Affairs, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In 1993 the government promised to renegotiate the NAFTA to ensure that the deal worked for the benefit of Canadians. The latest development is that Canada's freshwater is up for sale and Ontario says it is legal to permit private sale and export of Canadian water to overseas markets.

Under the NAFTA there is very little the government can do to protect our natural water resources.

With the expressed concern on this issue, what will the minister do to protect Canada from bulk exports of our water?