Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The Reform Party has always supported the concept that all Canadians deserve to live in a clean and healthy environment. The key to protecting our environment is to ensure a co-operative attitude. Without co-operation no piece of legislation will achieve its purpose.
In order for environmental goals and targets to be met it is essential that an open dialogue representing social, scientific, technical and economic considerations be held. The successful development of any project requires consideration for all these aspects.
It is important that we never lose sight of the role played by public consultation and participation. With the recent signing of the environmental harmonization accord the time has come for all levels of government to work with each other to ensure that environmental issues receive top consideration.
In 1988 when the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act came into force, now simply referred to as CEPA, the goal of the legislation was to protect the environment and in turn protect human health.
CEPA intended to fill regulatory gaps where they existed in the legislative framework with particular attention being paid to the issue of toxic substances, when and if to ban them and how harmful they can be to our health and our environment.
CEPA has also played an international role. Canada has always tried to play an important role in the international arena and whenever international environmental treaties are signed, international obligations ensue.
This piece of legislation touches and affects several acts, including the environmental contaminants act, the oceans dumping control act and the clean air act. The legislative review that began last parliament was part of a mandatory review of the administration of this act. The review resulted in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's holding hearings which resulted in a report of recommendations.
The old bill, Bill C-74, died on the order paper and never made it through the House, the reasons for which I will delve into briefly. Now a revamped version has been tabled under Bill C-32.
This rather extensive piece of legislation, 230 pages in all, provides measures for the protection of environment and human health as well as pollution prevention. Other sections deal with the management of toxic substances, the virtual elimination of releases of substances determined to be the most dangerous, and the partnerships needed to achieve the highest level of environmental quality. This last section is particularly important because without strong co-operation between varying levels of government, science, industry and environmental sectors no amount of legislation will safeguard our land, keep it in good health and preserve it for our children and their children to enjoy.
Among the changes made to CEPA, Bill C-32 includes the provision to implement pollution prevention, new procedures for the investigation and assessment of substances and new requirements for toxicity assessments, new provisions respecting fuels, international air and water pollution, motor emissions, federal and aboriginal land protection, the proper disposal of wastes and other matters at sea and the safer export and import of waste.
Should Bill C-32 be enacted it will provide for the gathering of information for research and the creation of inventories of data, the publishing of objectives, guidelines and codes of practice, new powers for inspectors, investigators and laboratory analysis, many environmental protection alternative measures as well as civil suit action guidelines.
The differences between the old bill and Bill C-32 are not overwhelming.
Bill C-32 contains minor amendments that appear to work in favour of the bill. That is not to say the bill has no shortcomings.
However, these concerns can and must be addressed by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. One area of concern lies with the issue of jurisdiction.
Looking to the Constitution for help in this matter is fruitless. Environmental jurisdiction is not definite in the Constitution.
For years now much duplication and overlap between different levels of government have left us with the relatively ineffective system in dire need of fine tuned co-operation.
Since the 1980s environmental protection has been expanded at the federal and provincial levels. The result has been a great deal of tension between the provinces and the federal government that has been taken to the highest courts in this land.
Last September the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa has a right to enact legislation to protect the environment. However, the supreme court also made special note that the federal government was not to take this as a carte blanche to run all over the existing provincially run areas of the environment.
This holds true with an important aspect of Reform principles. Very often some government affairs are best carried out at a closer level to the people of this nation.
While it is true that environmental issues transcend man made boundaries, if the provinces are properly carrying out their environmental duties, there is no reason for the federal government to interfere.
Federal-provincial co-operation is essential to ensuring that environmental policies are carried through. If the recent signing of the harmonization accord between the federal and provincial environment ministers is any indication, perhaps we are well on our way to ensuring a partnership rather than an adversarial approach to environmental protection.
The resources required to adequately protect our environment and consequently our health are vast. Clearly such a huge task should be shared by all levels of government.
I would like to emphasize and take this opportunity to mention municipal involvement. Municipal levels of government are closest to the people.
Canadians deal with their local city councils on almost a daily basis and we should encourage grassroots participation in safeguarding our environment.
Getting back to the problems between federal and provincial jurisdictions over the environment, a clear understanding must be achieved in order to avoid unnecessary overlap and duplication.
Reform blue book policy clearly supports the establishment of clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters.
It is important to keep in mind that every dollar saved in the administration of the environment would be better spent toward such areas as pollution prevention, viable alternative energy systems and waste management, to name a few.
Bill C-32 contains some amendments requiring co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in an attempt to show support for the harmonization accord signed in St. John's, Newfoundland earlier this year.
CEPA's preamble sets out a shared responsibility for the environment. Here is an important step toward true harmonization and cost effective environmental protection.
This alone, however, hardly is enough. It is imperative that CEPA spell out that the government will discharge its responsibilities by working co-operatively under the federal-provincial-territorial Canadian-wide accord and subagreements on environmental harmonization as agreed to in principle by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
Safeguards are in place to ensure that no one province steers the direction of the federal government vis-à-vis any international treaties. The federal government must be cognizant that many international treaties will require provincial implementation and that provinces should be able to take part in any implementation strategies.
Bill C-32 empowers the minister with the control of the movement of non-hazardous solid waste to or from the United States. Usually waste management falls under provincial jurisdiction and this is one area that could cause tensions between federal and provincial levels of power.
This is one section that may need to be reworked. In the area of accountability, it is interesting to note that CEPA allows for the creation of a national advisory committee. Unfortunately the committee structure compromises its accountability to Canadians.
The members of the national advisory committee are appointed by the minister without any provincial involvement, and this is not acceptable.
The lack of accountability may cause this committee to act as a political vehicle to promote the minister's agenda rather than a national vehicle to ensure provinces and territories are fairly represented in the decision making process.
This brings me back to my first point, the importance of a fair and open consultation process for the public, especially in the development of regulations and additions of new substances. Reform has always supported the principle of grassroots participation. We are dedicated to public consultation and policy development, especially when we are dealing with an issue that knows no boundaries such as the environment.
Eventually we all eat from the same earth, drink from the same water and breathe the same air. In short, we are all in this together, so the best way is a co-operative way because we are all affected by the environment in one way or another.
I am not impressed with the lack of formal consultation processes in CEPA. During the last parliamentary session over 100 concerns were raised regarding CEPA and there are still areas of concern that need to be addressed especially in the area of consultation.
For example, Bill C-32 needs to ensure that all draft regulations and guidelines are released for public comment 60 days before the minister formally releases the assessment. It is unfortunate that too much is left to the minister's discretion.
Another example of this is the environmental registry. Access to the registry should be open and the form should be clearly announced. Bill C-32 leaves all this at the minister's discretion. This secrecy is not justifiable.
Another questionable issue is the lack of requirement to print the final text of all agreements in the Canada Gazette . I am unclear as to why this is not a required practice. I ask that the minister allow all final texts be published in full and easily accessed through the Internet.
One more area of concern is the lack of adequate time given to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to review proposed administrative and equivalency agreements. As a member of this committee I have twice witnessed the fast track approach taken by the environment minister, once to push through the harmonization accord and second to pull together a very last minute and rather hasty position on Kyoto.
Now more than ever Canadians are fed up with the old way of doing business. Canadians are demanding accountability from their government. I remind the environment minister that this means no more dealings behind closed doors. Canadians want transparency when it comes to conducting business dealings.
One more area required for sound policy decision making is reliance on sound scientific principles. It is imperative that legislation reflect the right choices to protect our environment and not for political gain, as has been the case. CEPA and many decisions made under this legislation need to be supported by sound scientific study.
One area where the old bill has serious problems rests with the minister's ability to bypass section 65 and overlook the requirements set out in the risk assessment determination on toxic substances.
I am quite certain Canadians would not be impressed to find out this bill gives the environment minister unlimited powers to bypass science in her decision making. This is one of the critical reasons Reform, environmentalists, industry and many Canadians cannot support this bill. Perhaps this was one of the reasons for its demise in the last parliament. Further study will be required to assess whether the unlimited powers section has been properly addressed.
It is odd that the word toxic is not defined in Bill C-32's preamble considering there is an entire section devoted to controlling toxic substances. This section may allow substances to be defined as toxic without the necessary scientific evidence needed to prove toxicity.
It is rather frightening to think this may be yet another section giving the minister or parliament authority the ability to arbitrarily ban substances.
Another concern is the provisions to provide for toxic assessment consultation fail to require that qualified experts from government, academia and industry are full partners in the assessment process.
Another controversial section of the bill is the national ban on substances banned in other provinces or industrialized countries. Such a policy could abandon risk assessment as a basis for priorization and chemical control when it is the standard accepted internationally and by the science community.
This policy could also undermine the necessity of requiring a science basis for decisions. It is critical that the role of science be clarified so that science forms the basis of decisions made under CEPA. This needs to be spelled out clearly.
Another key issue is enforcement which is critical to environment policy. The Reform Party has many clear positions on enforcement. Reform blue book policy clearly supports the principle that the polluter should pay for its pollution controls and that this be stringently enforced in an unbiased manner and that penalties be severe enough so polluters will not consider them a licence fee to pollute.
Reform also supports fines and jail sentences for officers and executives of companies violating environmental laws.
The biggest problem with CEPA is its lack of enforcement. When CEPA was proclaimed 10 years ago the Conservative government bragged that it introduced the toughest environmental law in the western hemisphere. Yet this has proven to be quite the exaggeration.
One of the principal concerns regarding this act is inadequate funding for enforcement. The department simply does not have the resources to ensure that the requirements of the act are fulfilled. The environment department has had almost two-thirds of its budget slashed since the Liberals came to power. No matter how tough the minister makes the act it will make no difference unless the department has the resources to enforce the legislation.
What must be emphasized more than enforcement is the operative word compliance. It is always better to follow the carrot over the stick approach. A law must have the capacity to enforce its regulations. Yet it will be more effective if it can deter individuals from breaking the law or, better yet, if it can encourage individuals to follow the law.
Other areas of enforcement contained in Bill C-32 also need to be examined and possibly amended for improvement. For example, the right to sue provisions contained within the bill may be improved if amended so that the government is made a mandatory party to any suit.
Whistleblower protection contained in the legislation may also require expansion to include whistleblower protection for workers who report breaches of the law and bad environmental practice not just to inspectors but to the public and through the media. Pollution is a public issue and workers should have the right to publicize it without fear of sanctions.
Despite the many needed areas of improvement, some of the other improvements to Bill C-74, which is now Bill C-32, include improved time lines for adding new substances that have been assessed and added to the domestic substance list. Pollution prevention planning guidelines have been further developed in the new bill. Recognition of voluntary instruments has also been added.
Section 51 has been amended to ensure that pollution prevention virtual elimination and environmental emergency plans can only be required by the minister for substances that are on the list of toxic substances.
Greater flexibility has been provided in the preparation of pollution prevention plans to keep with the policy objective that the plan does not become akin to excessive regulatory burden.
Many changes have been made to Bill C-32, formerly Bill C-74, to make it more acceptable to the public. There are still areas of concern that need to be worked out. Canadians have waited a long time for the government to pass meaningful realistic environmental legislation.
Especially after the fiasco with Kyoto, I am hoping to see our government get away from its empty rhetoric and destructive political agendas and move toward something more realistic and acceptable to Canadians that will truly benefit our environment. I hope we never again have to witness such an embarrassment as the lack of formal consultation and the lack of an implementation strategy prior to set targets like we did with Kyoto.
On a more positive note it appears that there has been sufficient progress with Bill C-32 to make it a plausible alternative to the existing legislation. Depending on further analysis of the bill, as long as the progress made on the bill is not lost in committee and some revisions are made to tighten it up there is a good chance the official opposition may support the bill.
