Karen Kraft Sloan

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 12, 1998, the Minister of the Environment introduced Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

Today the minister is in Toronto for the first joint meeting of energy and environment ministers since Kyoto. The minister will be taking part in a CEPA debate on Monday.

I am pleased to begin the second reading of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In 1988, only 10 years ago, the Canadian Environment Protection Act, or CEPA, became law. When first introduced CEPA was a significant shift in environmental law and in the way the federal government protected Canada's environment and human health.

The original CEPA contained several important measures including various approaches to the management of toxic substances, provisions for citizens to request an investigation and parliamentary scrutiny and review of the act after five years.

Similar provisions are internationally and domestically becoming more common in environmental legislation. In fact over the past 10 years environmental science and law have evolved considerably. We have much greater insight into the stresses that humans place on the environment. We know more about what must be done to reduce and remedy these stresses. We also have a strong and growing public concern for the environment and related impacts on human health.

Environmental protection is a core value for Canadians. More than 90% of surveyed Canadians are concerned about toxic chemicals, air pollution and water quality. Legislation must reflect the growth and change of society. CEPA must reflect the awareness and concern of Canadians.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development when it undertook the year-long review of CEPA in 1994. Our review, the government response to it and further talks with stakeholders including provinces, territories, aboriginal people, industry, environmental and other groups were included in the development of the bill. The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act must serve as a tool to help Canadians as we move into the 21st century.

Overall, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act covers pollution prevention, managing toxic substances, clean air and water, controlling pollution and waste. The act is further comprised of parts including public participation, environmental matters related to emergencies, biotechnology, federal government operations and federal aboriginal lands, enforcement and information gathering, objectives, guidelines and codes of practice. More important, Bill C-32 incorporates a number of policy directions or objectives.

Some important goals of environmental management are noted in the preamble and these include an ecosystem approach, the precautionary principle and the principle of pollution prevention.

I would like to address the following goals of environmental management: the ecosystem approach, the precautionary principle, user/producer responsibility, pollution prevention, the management of toxic substances, enforcement, and public participation.

Our environment is dependent on countless complex interactions among air, land, water and all living creatures. Ecosystem is defined under the act as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.

An ecosystem approach to environmental management recognizes the fact that all of these components are interdependent. These interactions are key to our continued health and existence. We cannot, for example, protect our air by removing contaminants from smoke stacks only to dump them into our waterways. We cannot protect our waterways by removing pollutants from discharge pipes and sending them to landfills.

An ecosystem approach to managing our environment requires the consideration of the complete picture and all its interdependencies, not just specific pieces of it. The concept of the comprehensive, integrated whole must underpin all our research activities and the way we make decisions.

The earth is an existing single reality and it can survive—we can survive—only in its integral functioning. An ecosystem approach is an integrative, transdisciplinary approach. It recognizes the interplay and interdependence of various domains such as biophysical, socioeconomic, human health, political and ethical domains that make life possible on our planet. Protection and amelioration of the environment demands this integrative and transdisciplinary approach.

An essential component of the current CEPA is the minister's authority to carry out monitoring and research on environmental quality. Monitoring and research allows us to understand and respond to environmental challenges. Knowledge is a critical precursor to informed decision making. The new CEPA specifies that ecosystem health is included in the concept of environmental quality and provides authority to conduct studies to detect the state of and damage to ecosystems.

Bill C-32 also allows for the publication of a state of the environment report for Canada and the development of ecosystem objectives, guidelines, codes of practice and inventories. Efforts will be focused on maintaining the integrity of ecosystems and not just individual components.

In the preamble of the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act the government is committed to the implementation of the precautionary principle which is now clearly recognized as a fundamental tenet of international environmental law.

Precautionary principle means that we act to prevent environmental damage rather than react after the damage has occurred.

Under the precautionary principle science is an essential component of what is done under CEPA. We must act when the weight of evidence suggests that a potential threat to the environment and human health exists. The costs of inaction are simply too high.

I would like to briefly talk about the concept of user/producer responsibility which has also been included in the preamble to Bill C-32. User/producer responsibility means placing a greater onus on the producer, user or importer of a substance to ensure that it is safe.

This is consistent with current regulations under CEPA that require information and data to allow for an assessment of these products before they are introduced into the marketplace. The bottom line is that individuals who profit from a substance should ensure that it does not pose a risk to the environment or to human health.

The pollution prevention approach demonstrates that government must identify toxic substances, work with others who are in positions to devise effective solutions to change specific processes and reduce or eliminate pollutants and waste and, where necessary, aggressively control these substances.

Pollution prevention is a much better approach than trying to control or clean pollution up after it has been created. The pollution prevention approach benefits the environment, improves the health of Canadians and saves money. Good environmental practices make good business sense. They lower operating costs, increase value for customers and build loyalty.

Canadians are particularly concerned about the risks that toxic substances pose to their health, their children's health, as well as the long term sustainability of their environment.

It has been recognized that stricter management action is required for toxics if they result primarily from human activity, if they persist in the environment for long periods of time and if they bioaccumulate, that is, the toxins are stored in the tissues of living creatures.

Minute quantities of these substances can build up over time. When they do, they can reach levels that cause serious, long term adverse effects to the environment or to human health. Once in the environment, these substances will damage our health and our ecosystem over many generations through subtle effects to the endocrine, immune, reproductive and other sensitive biological systems.

A virtual elimination approach for these substances is required to protect our health and that of the environment.

Bill C-32 allows the government to completely prohibit the importation and manufacture of these substances.

Environmental protection compliance orders are a powerful new tool that work like injunctions. Our inspectors will be able to issue orders on the spot to stop illegal activity and, if necessary, require an action to correct a violation so that the environment and public safety are protected.

Bill C-32 also creates a new category of enforcement officer called CEPA investigators. These officers will be investigation specialists with expertise in the gathering of evidence and court procedures. They will have all the powers of inspectors as well as certain peace officer powers such as the authority to serve court documents. Environmental protection alternative measures, EPAMs, are another enforcement tool. These alternative measures are essentially negotiated settlements to criminal charges. They allow the government to get companies back into compliance and make them pay fines or restore the environment without proceeding into costly and lengthy court cases. Charges are withdrawn only once the conditions of the environmental protection alternative measures are met.

Canadians have a role to play in maintaining a healthy and viable environment. Canadians want a healthy environment and they want to be involved in the solutions. Government alone cannot be expected to protect the environment. Canadians have throughout the years expressed their desire to be active participants.

While provisions for public participation were included by parliament in the original CEPA they were limited. The new CEPA seeks to improve opportunities for public participation. First, Bill C-32 requires the establishment of a registry of environmental information. It is currently proposed to make the registry accessible through the Internet. This will increase information available to Canadians. Use of the registry should increase public participation, how Canadians make more informed decisions and make it easier to hold the government accountable for its actions.

Second, Bill C-32 sets out an explicit requirement to establish and publish the national pollutants release inventory so that Canadians have access to information about pollutants being released in their communities. This inventory exists now on the basis of a policy decision. With Bill C-32 the government is going further by making it a legal commitment to provide the public with information.

Third, under the existing CEPA whistleblower protection applies only to individuals who report illegal releases of toxic substances. Bill C-32 also broadens this to include all violations such as improper storage of PCB contaminated material. Individuals who report infractions can have their confidentiality protected and all federally regulated employees can report violations without fear of dismissal, harassment or disciplinary action.

In addition, the current CEPA allows citizens to sue only if they can demonstrate that they have suffered loss or damage because of a violation of the act. In the original red book we stated our intention to use the review of CEPA to examine giving members of the public access to the courts as a last recourse if the federal government fails to enforce an environmental law.

Bill C-32 allows citizens to sue when there has been a violation of CEPA and the government fails to enforce the act resulting in significant harm to the environment. In other words, a person can sue for damage to the environment without the need to prove they suffered personal harm.

These changes will foster greater public participation which will help ensure the protection of Canada's environment.

I call on all members of the House to enter into the debate on this very important piece of environmental legislation. The legacy we as members of the House leave our children and generations to follow is reflected in how we regard the natural environment.

[World Meteorological Day, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked World Meteorological Day. Every year on March 23 we commemorate the coming into force of the convention of the World Meteorological Organization in 1950. Canada is a founding member of the organization and plays a prominent role in its work.

World Meteorological Day is an opportunity to raise public awareness and appreciation for the valuable public weather service that Environment Canada, with its dedicated staff, provides to Canadians 24 hours a day, every day of the year.

Weather events such as the recent ice storm that hit eastern Canada, the Manitoba floods and the Saguenay disaster, remind us how important reliable, accurate weather and environmental information is in helping Canadians protect themselves and their property.

[Responsible Government, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, founders of responsible government in Canada, Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine, worked to make Canada a country in which both francophones and anglophones could live in harmony.

In 1841 Baldwin was easily elected to represent the communities that make up my riding of York North. Monsieur Lafontaine however was defeated in his Quebec constituency. In a gesture that has since become the stuff of Canadian legend, Baldwin gave up his seat in York North for Lafontaine. The people of York North readily elected Mr. Lafontaine.

Baldwin and Lafontaine were reformers in the true sense of the word. They fought for greater tolerance, co-operation and democracy in our political system. They worked to show what Canadians have in common, not what keeps them apart. Perhaps today's Reformers could take some inspiration from their example.

Long live responsible government. Long live the spirit of tolerance among all Canadians. Long live the true memory of Baldwin and Lafontaine.

[1998 Winter Olympics, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada won more than gold in Nagano.

By all accounts the Japanese fell in love with the Canadian team. They love our fierce competitive style, our strength and endurance, our courage against all adversity, our sense of fair play and, most of all, they love the Canadian nerve.

Our Olympic athletes made us very proud. In particular I would like to recognize two Olympians from York North, Veronica Brenner and Curtis Joseph Cujo. Brenner is the world cup grand prix champion in freestyle aerial skiing and Curtis is an NHL goaltender. They represented York North with distinction.

Congratulations to all our athletes. They represented Canada with pride and we thank them.

[Mahatma Gandhi, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago on January 30, 1948 the world lost a noble man, the great souled or pre-eminent leader of Indian nationalism, Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi was a political leader who clearly demonstrated, through action, the concept of civil disobedience or passive resistance. But Gandhi left a legacy in addition to the lessons of civil disobedience through his articulation of seven social sins: politics without principle, wealth without work, commerce without morality, education without character, pleasure without conscience, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice.

If we listen to the message Gandhi gave us, we in this House are better prepared to serve this country and build a good society.

[Child Benefit, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make note of the contribution that the hon. member from the opposition has made in his hard work as a new member on the environment committee. The House should also be aware that the member was a member of the Canadian delegation that went to Kyoto to discuss the very urgent issue of climate change. We are all aware of his very important and continued contributions to this House on the ecological agenda.

On behalf of the minister I would like to take the opportunity to clarify several points regarding Environment Canada's program review.

It was reported in the fall that this government had mandated new cuts to Environment Canada. That is not true. What is true is that Environment Canada announced to staff early last September that the department had to adjust its strategies for dealing with the 1996 budget reductions that will take effect on April 1, 1998.

The 1996 budget reductions are the result of program review two. The department's budget is reduced by 3.5% or $17.2 million. Originally the department felt that about 70% of the reduction could be met through increased cost recovery.

While cost recovery revenues have been increasing, it is now clear that they will be insufficient to deal with the budget reduction in 1998-99. So the department is having to eliminate approximately 200 positions, as the member opposite has pointed out.

Environment Canada will endeavour, as best as it can, to enforce regulations to reduce pollution and protect wildlife, to set national standards and to issue weather warnings to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

[The Environment, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

This issue was raised in the auditor general's report. It was a very important report. The minister is appreciative of this report because it brings to light a number of concerns. When she returns from Kyoto, she will be following up with officials on many of these important issues.

[Disabled Persons, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today is International Day of Disabled Persons. Since the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons ended in 1992, we have become a more enlightened society.

We have removed barriers in many of our buildings to make them more accessible and functional for people with disabilities. We have heightened public awareness and acceptance that access is a right and everyone's responsibility.

This government provided $168 million to the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program. As well, the Government of Canada is contributing an additional $100 million for Canadians with disabilities. This includes the new $30 million opportunities fund that will help people with disabilities to find jobs.

The litmus test of Canadians' commitment to equality and equity is meaningful social and economic participation.

[Environment, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, protection of the environment begins in our communities. In that respect Environment Canada launched its Action 21 Network program earlier this year to identify Canadians undertaking successful environmental initiatives.

I am very proud to announce that the town of Georgina in my riding of York North has recently received a certificate of environmental citizenship from Environment Canada. The town of Georgina was the first town in the greater Toronto area to implement a full user pay for garbage program. They charge $1.00 per bag.

Georgina soon discovered that people think much differently about what they are discarding when they have to pay for garbage disposal. Within one month of implementation there was a 50% increase in recycling and a 40% decrease in waste going to landfill. Overall there has been a 40% decrease in the amount of waste.

I commend Mayor Grossi, the council and citizens of Georgina for their achievements.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, over the next century global temperatures are predicted to undergo change greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years. This will create a chain reaction, impairing the Earth's hydrology, geochemistry and botany. As a result, planetary aquatic and terrestrial life forms will be stressed, economic, industrial and commercial activities will be challenged, and socio-political relationships will be strained.

Even with concerted substantive action today we will see a doubling of CO2 in the next century. Even with stabilization by 2010 it will still take a significant timeframe to rid the atmosphere of the greenhouse gases to the point where the current rise in global temperatures is restored to a level decreed in the UN framework convention on climate change 1992. It stated that such a level should allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable way.

Roger Street, one of the editors of Environment Canada's recent “Canada Country Study” said that climate is a key defining variable for Canada, it defines our social and economic well-being. Natural processes are inextricably linked and when one fundamental piece, like climate, is so dramatically altered, no other natural process is immune. With that fact in mind and to paraphrase Mr. Street, our social and economic well-being will be altered as well.

I fear that our institutions, political, economic and social, have not kept pace to adequately respond to the changes we have created in our natural environment. Our ability to mitigate harmful human interference and adapt to negative impacts of climate change is seriously hampered.

Natural laws are immutable. There is nothing we can do as legislators in this place, pass laws, make policy and act on these, that could ever supersede nature. When we attempt to do so, we put at risk the health and well-being of all of the Earth's community, including ourselves.

We must learn our lesson from climate change. We must legislate and govern as if the Earth mattered.

Because we cannot fool nature, we must accept that action be realistic and effective in actually dealing with the issue of global climate change.

The eyes of the world will be on Kyoto next week as representatives from the planet's governments convene to negotiate an agreement. There are many proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We should acknowledge the effort put forward by the nations of the world in recognizing the seriousness of the problem and their willingness to propose solutions.

There is concern however that some of the solutions have loopholes attached, loopholes which would exclude HFCs, PFCs and SF6, which are rapidly growing and could contribute at least 5% more to greenhouse gas emissions. Other loopholes would inflate the baseline year emissions thus making it appear easier for countries to achieve stabilization.

Whatever legally binding agreement is negotiated at Kyoto, it must be clear, express and provide targets and criteria to repair damage to natural systems. Not paper reductions but real reductions that can be measured by nature's account balance.

More important than Kyoto however is what we do after in Canada. Climate change is a global issue, but the dialogue and action begins at home. We have a duty. The duty is to engage Canadians. The solutions to address climate change exist. They exist in our homes, communities, office towers, shop floors, classrooms and labs and they exist here in this place.

The public and private sectors and individual Canadians and their communities must all make a fair contribution to solving a problem of climate change. We must build on the exemplary work of the Canada Country Study. It is the first ever national assessment of the social, biological and economic impact of climate change, which includes regional studies, sectoral analysis and reports on cost cutting issues.

Environment Canada brought together experts from government, industry, academia and non government organizations to complete this study. The Canada Country Study tells us that impacts will range in both degree and variability, depending on the region of the country and the economic sector. Make no mistake, all parts of Canada, all Canadians will be affected.

Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, utilities, energy extraction and production and industrial and commercial residential sources vary from region to region depending on predominant economic activities. Any realistic post-Kyoto implementation strategy should include a range of mitigation measures reflecting the diversity of Canada's regions and sectors.

Energy efficiency is crucial to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Energy efficiency and conservation initiatives implemented by Natural Resources Canada from 1990 to 1995 resulted in energy savings of approximately $4 billion a year to the Canadian economy.

The private sector must be encouraged to increase energy efficiencies. A number of initiatives currently exist and must be expanded. For example, insurance companies are starting to offer energy savings insurance policies to commercial and municipal operations to provide their lenders with security for the repayment of energy saving building retrofits.

Engaging Canadians individually and in their communities is central to achieving greenhouse gas reductions. The Ontario Green Communities program is a community success story. Green communities are community based, non-profit, multi-partner environmental organizations. They achieve results by mobilizing community co-operation and providing practical services and advice. The mission of green communities is to build sustainable communities by conserving resources, preventing pollution and protecting and enhancing natural ecological processes.

This year with the support of Environment Canada, the Green Communities Association launched a national initiative to promote the establishment of new community based networks across Canada to build national partnerships and establish a national alliance. A significant component of their activities is the residential retrofit program which will help engage Canadians in the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Another success story is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities 20% Club. Members of the 20% Club bring national objectives on climate change together with local voluntary initiatives.

The federal government plays a pivotal leadership role in engaging Canadians, communities, industry, along with the public sector in the national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environment Canada's community based programs involve Canadians at the community level. Their support of the Green Communities Association means Canadians can increase awareness of climate change and contribute to the betterment of the natural environment.

Environment Canada's Canada Country Study involved hundreds of Canadians in the assessment of socioeconomic impacts of climate change. The shift to energy efficiency can be accelerated by fiscal policies that support and encourage residential and commercial retrofit, the development of renewable and alternative energy and increased usage of natural gas. These policies can be financed by shifting funds away from fiscal initiatives that encourage perverse ecological subsidies.

Energy efficiency activities are job creators. The shift to this sector would encourage technological innovations to flourish in environmental industries that will increase trading opportunities for Canadian firms.

This a win-win agenda. It is an agenda that engages all Canadians in the very important national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.