Bill C-15 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

This enactment amends the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 to
(a) state that that Act applies in the exclusive economic zone of Canada;
(b) protect migratory birds from the effects caused by deposits of harmful substances, such as oil, in the exclusive economic zone of Canada;
(c) state that that Act applies to vessels and their owners and operators;
(d) subject masters, chief engineers, owners and operators of vessels and directors and officers of corporations to a duty of care to ensure compliance with that Act and its regulations;
(e) expand the enforcement powers to include orders to direct and detain vessels found to be in contravention of that Act or its regulations;
(f) expand the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to include the exclusive economic zone of Canada;
(g) increase penalties; and
(h) permit courts to impose additional punishments in the form of orders covering matters such as environmental audits, community service and the creation of scholarships for students enrolled in environmental studies.
This enactment also amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to
(a) protect the marine environment from the wrongful activities of ships as well as persons;
(b) include prohibitions concerning the disposal and incineration of substances at sea by ships;
(c) include regulation-making authority to deal with disposals of substances during the normal operations of ships, aircrafts, platforms and other structures;
(d) expand the enforcement powers to include orders to direct ships found to be in contravention of that Act or its regulations;
(e) subject owners of ships and directors and officers of corporations that own ships to a duty of care to ensure that ships comply with the provisions of that Act and its regulations concerning disposal at sea and with orders and directions made under that Act; and
(f) expand the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to include the exclusive economic zone of Canada.

Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-15, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 15 the following:

“(6) All fines received by the Receiver General in respect of the commission of an offence under this Act shall be received for the special purpose of protecting and conserving migratory birds or the environment and credited to the Environmental Damages Fund, an account in the accounts of Canada.”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-15. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his cooperation.

Today we will conclude consideration of the business of supply for the present period.

Tomorrow we will start with Bill C-10, the civil law harmonization legislation. I believe that there is agreement to do this at all stages.

Then we will start on a list that will carry us into next week: report stage and second reading of Bill C-18, respecting Telefilm; reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-27, respecting food and drugs; second reading of Bill C-26, respecting border services; report stage and second reading of Bill C-15, respecting migratory birds; second reading of Bill C-29, respecting patent regulations; and of course, completion of business not finished this week.

My hon. colleague has also indicated cooperation on Bill C-20. I know that there are some ongoing discussions with respect to a quick completion of Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal bill. We would hopefully get to that before we adjourned.

On Monday evening there will be a take note debate on the problems in western Canada with pine beetles. Accordingly, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, a take note debate on pine beetles take place on December 13, 2004.

Department of Social Development Act

[Christian Simard, Bloc, Beauport, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and speak to this bill, not because I or my party support the principle or the decision to establish this department. Indeed, I wish to indicate what, in my view, is missing in this process of creation and division of existing departments in the field of regional development, of creating things that nobody is asking for.

I must confess my disappointment with a number of laws. I am a newcomer in this House and I am a little disappointed with the parliamentary agenda that looks more like red tape, or, if I may say so, like liberal tape, than substantive debates on bills that are supposed to help Canadians and Quebeckers.

Thus, instead of having laws that allow the government to use its incredibly large surpluses that are hidden in foundations and budget estimates, or in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, departments are being created, then divided and civil servants are moved around. That is always done,and above all, in jurisdictions that do not belong to the federal government, but to the government of Quebec or other provinces. Such is the case with the famous Department of Social Development.

Before getting into politics, I wondered how I would look at the issues and what my perspective would be. I told myself that I would read each piece of legislation presented to us and try to determine if it is good for children and if it can improve their living conditions.

As we know, there are more than one million Canadians, and a similar proportion in Quebec--unfortunately the situation is no different in that respect—of children living in poverty. In fact, this number is growing constantly. At one point, we had some degree of control over child poverty, but it seems this kind of poverty has been increasing in recent years.

Will this bill really help? Will this division, the creation of a new structure within another structure, help in the fight against child poverty? I very much doubt it.

Various programs will come under the responsibility of this new department if it is created. We hope it will not be, because we do not see how it will improve conditions for people.

In another life, I worked a great deal with community organizations. Under the bill before us, the department will be responsible for the volunteer and community sector. I remember the frenzy, when community groups were constantly forced to apply for grants, often for reasons of visibility. This required a lot of energy on the part of volunteers or of those who were somewhat pompously called permanent members of community organizations and volunteers—I was one of them—and whose main feature was in fact that they were not “permanent” and that they were in a precarious situation.

How much energy is spent by these groups in trying to be included in a system of programs to get a few dollars? What these groups need is a clear policy of recognition. The Quebec government is trying to give them such a policy, but it often does not have the means to do that. These groups need a policy that gives them recognition and a permanent status to be able to serve people and provide services to the community.

Instead, they must bend over backwards to comply with the objectives of federal department programs that have more to do with ensuring visibility for the minister than with giving real resources to people.

This is one example among many others that do not directly relate to this department's responsibility. Hon. members will understand that, as the Bloc Québécois critic on housing, I take this issue very seriously.

Therefore, since 1993, the federal government has been talking about giving back full responsibility to the provinces, including Quebec, for housing, so they can set housing policies.

This is 2004, almost 2005—Christmas is approaching—and that transfer has still not been made. This transfer will have very strong consequences, but because it has not happened, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in this case, is no longer investing in the cooperative or non-profit housing sector, since this responsibility will soon be transferred. All this duplication, all these approaches by the federal government have direct consequences on people's lives and we have to admit that the consequences are not good.

We see measures that, on the face of it, may seem interesting. We looked at the child tax benefit. Once again, we have seen that there is a measure, but it is a measure that ensures that a certain group of very poor people will have to pay more. There are many different mechanisms in the income tax legislation.

In the case of people with the lowest incomes, because of Quebec's $5 day care system, now at $7, the government has $70 million in taxes that it can draw on. Normally, those taxes should have been used for the benefit of those families who are losing $70 million because of a measure that supposedly was taken to help them. They are the neediest.

So, we see that this duplication has a direct cost to the poorest members of society. This desire to create departments, to label all assistance, to say that this centralizing government in Ottawa is good and nice to the people, causes major problems for the people it is supposed to serve.

Consequently, the creation of a Department of Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec, a Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and a Department of Social Development does not seem to me to create tangible values for people. All this does not bring one cent more, it only creates confusion, a desire for visibility and a quest for centralizing power.

Do we move ahead in terms of equity, of resource sharing, of relieving the debt of the provinces through adequate transfers? No, we are not going in that direction, we are moving in the opposite direction. This is too bad and it saddens me, so soon before Christmas, to know that there are people who count on a government that would adopt measures on their behalf. They realize that the government helps itself first, serves its visibility, its structures, its public service, its mandarins, but does not serve the people who pay the income tax, people who hope for something better. It makes me sad.

There is a host of examples, and to think that this department will be in charge of national standards in the area of day care centres under the Canadian day care centres program.This program will impose standards on all provinces, and eventually on Quebec, while Quebec has been the leader in this field. It is a leadership that turns out to be very costly for Quebec.

The federal government has saved a billion dollars since the introduction of $5 day care centres, now at a cost of $7. This is a billion dollars that the government does not have to pay out in tax credits to families.

With this amount, if there had been full compensation, would we have been able to better serve patients in hospitals? The answer is yes. Would we have been able to use that money to put books in libraries? Yes, we could have. When Quebec helps its children, it also enables the federal government to save a billion dollars and this government, well aware of that, does nothing to compensate this injustice, does nothing to transfer this money.

During the election, the government promised that an agreement had been signed, but that agreement was not worth the paper on which it was written. This is a scandal. That agreement still has not been put on the table. This is why people sometimes become cynical about politics.

As a new politician, this situation really saddens me.

I am very sad to see so much energy being spent to create new structures, to look for visibility, to make intrusions and to create new departments in areas that are clearly under Quebec's jurisdiction. We put so much energy into playing partisan politics and waving the flag to get more visibility. This energy could be used to provide better government, to better distribute wealth, to work better and more efficiently in our own areas of jurisdiction.

Instead of that, we create communities departments and regional development departments for Quebec and we expand the Health department. In short, we are doing a lot but doing it badly, in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Meanwhile, we are doing very little, and doing it poorly, in our own areas of jurisdiction.

If I may digress for just a moment, today again, I was looking at the evidence given by the sailors of the Chicoutimi who, while looking at the rusted submarines in which they were to sail, said “They will not force us to sail in that.” Until we have our own country, this is an area of federal jurisdiction, and this so-called competence is rather a shameful incompetence on the part of the federal government.

However, the government is eager to create structures, minor visibility programs, interfere in jurisdictions outside its own. It does so right in the throne speech and in legislation before the House.

I would like to support this legislation. I would like to be enthusiastic about various legislative measures supporting it. I would like to consider in the House legislation to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development. It would be interesting, as long as that legislation respects the responsibilities of the provinces and Quebec.

However, I am forced to admit that the most interesting things I have experienced in the political arena to date are the opposition motions. I am talking about the work of the Bloc Québécois and also the NDP, in some instances, particularly the motion limiting trans fats. That is something that directly concerns public health. It would not have come from the government. There have been many bills; I worked on Bill C-15, to protect migratory birds, but I wonder if it is a joke and if we will have the means to implement it.

Once again, an amendment by the opposition was necessary to implement, beyond the appearance of establishing significant fines, minimum fines for those shamelessly dumping petroleum products. For the first time in Canada, we have implemented significant minimum fines in environmental legislation. This did not come for this government. It is not really concerned with reality, but more with appearances.

In closing, I want to say that I will oppose, as will my colleagues, the creation of this Department of Social Development. We believe that the federal government must recognize once and for all that Quebec, although its leeway has been considerably reduced by the fiscal imbalance, has still managed to implement internationally renowned quality programs.

The Bloc Québécois will never agree to the creation of a department that not only has the mandate to duplicate and copy Quebec's avant-garde policies, but that also prevents Quebec from fully developing these policies. It is not about visibility, but about respect for the integrity, security and health of individuals.

We must always ask if this legislation serves the public or the structure. Unfortunately, this government is telling us that it is the latter.

Committees of the House

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development entitled, “Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999”.

In accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, November 2, Mr. Speaker, your committee has considered and held hearings on the subject matter of Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and agreed to it on Thursday, December 2, 2004.

I beg all members to look at the committee's report, particularly with respect to the oil spill that has occurred off the east coast. The bill attempts to deal with those kinds of issues as they affect maritime law and to bring our legislation into conformity with international legislation.

Department of Canadian Heritage Act

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to speak to the bill again and to let the House know that we support the bill in terms of transfer of parks from the heritage department to the environment department. We think it makes a lot of sense and obviously it can be administered better.

Today we also need to make a commitment to parks and to heritage sites so that in fact they will not become the poor cousins of the environment department and will be considered an important part of this whole portfolio.

The parliamentary secretary has mentioned cooperation between municipalities and between provincial governments. That is something in which our party believes very strongly.

It is interesting, too, when we talk to the general public. I just had the pleasure, along with my colleague from the Bloc, of addressing a group of university students who are here visiting the House this week. When we listen to their questions and concerns, what we hear is that environment certainly plays a very large role in what they think is important for their future, their families' future and their concerns. It is very rewarding to speak to a group like that because of their comments, their questions and their encouragement.

As well, I think it is important to talk about the heritage of parks and what they mean to different Canadians, their importance from an economic and an ecological standpoint, and of course we can get into tourism, what it means, and the image it creates for our country. Many of us who travel a lot and have for many years are very concerned about what people think of our country. Many of them do think about the parks and the parks system. Any number of times when I tell people where I am from they ask if that is close to Banff, Lake Louise or whatever, so it is an international thing that people know about.

I am very concerned as well about the $500 million deficit in infrastructure. The fact is that through the 1950s and 1960s we committed to preserving these parks, to having proper signage, to having a proper system of parks, and we have let that decline for various reasons. I think that for many parks we have done a disservice to future Canadians by letting this happen.

As well, when I visited the parks, I met with chambers of commerce that are close to the parks. I think most specifically of Jasper Park. One of the major comments I heard was the fact that cleaning of snow and repair of highways in parks comes out of the parks' budget, yet many of these roads are through the park and are part of transportation. A great deal of the parks budget is being used up for maintenance of highways, which is a transportation issue and really has nothing at all to do with the park.

Those are the kinds of issues that I hope Environment Canada takes a look at. I hope this department will manage better than the heritage department has done. As the critic for this area, I hope to hold the government's feet to the fire to be sure it makes parks the priority that I think most Canadians want them to be.

As well, having a long term vision and knowing where we want to go in terms of environment and the parks system becomes critical. It does not matter whether we are talking about the Great Lakes or the salmon fishery on the Pacific or of course the serious problems with oil spills in Atlantic Canada. It does not matter where we are talking about. No matter where it is in this country, I believe that we have had a relatively short term vision for what we want to do environmentally.

If anything, ecosystems do not work in the short term and changes to the environment usually happen over much longer periods of time. Again, I would encourage the government to come up with a much longer term plan for parks and for heritage sites throughout this whole country, and it will be our job to make sure that it does.

On the bigger issue, I will comment about the government's performance in environment. It is interesting that we are now rated 24th out of 24 of the industrialized countries by the OECD. We have an analysis done by the Conference Board of Canada. We have the environment commissioner, who for the last number of years has reported on our environmental standing. We are not doing that well. We have a number of major and serious environmental problems. Most of the world thinks of us as being that pristine, clean, pure air and pure water place, yet when we actually pull off the cover we find something quite different.

Therefore, I am disappointed that we are dealing with very minor environment bills. Obviously I am waiting for some substance in terms of the government's plan for the environment. While Bill C-7 is important, it could really be called a housekeeping bill. It is something that we are going to support but basically it is little more than housekeeping.

As for Bill C-15, which is basically about oiled birds in the Atlantic and Pacific, I think I asked my first question about oiled birds in 1996. The number of dying birds was 300,000 a year minimum and was probably more like a million, and I was told that the government would have legislation very soon. That was in 1996. I did a private member's bill in 1997 and here we are in 2004, almost 2005, and we finally have a piece of legislation on the oiling of birds.

That is not very quick action. If we do the mathematics, we see that this is an awful lot of birds. Those populations cannot withstand that kind of loss year after year with a government that is moving so slowly on environmental issues. I would hope that Parks Canada will not undergo that same tedious performance that we have seen to this point on a bill like that.

I want to come back to the environmental issues of our country. To be rated 24th out of 24 by the OECD is quite a shock. To be rated anywhere from 23rd to 15th or so by the Conference Board of Canada and to be rated by a number of other notable boards and groups in the very low part of the industrialized world is not something that I am proud of. Certainly as the senior environment critic, I hope we will change this and dedicate ourselves to change.

Let me give some examples. The first is the issue of raw sewage being dumped into the ocean. It is not a first world, advanced and developed country that dumps raw sewage into the ocean, yet we have three cities dumping raw sewage into the ocean and we call that environmental integrity. We have to change that, if for no other reason than just the reputation of our country.

I worked on the Sumas 2 issue, testifying in the U.S. as an intervenor on the Sumas 2 project and then again in Abbotsford on the same project.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are very familiar with that issue.

When I went to see the governor of the State of Washington it was very interesting. I went there to tell him they were taking water from our aquifer, that they were going to pollute the second most polluted airshed in Canada, the Fraser Valley, and that they were going to dump sewage into the Sumas River, which drains into the Fraser River in Canada. The most important issue was the location, which was wrong because of those factors.

The governor listened and then he commented. His comment was that he was very glad I went to see him. He said that he understood the air quality issue in the Fraser Valley, but he said, “Why don't you and I get in my car and drive down to the Seattle Harbour and you let me show you your sewage coming from Victoria?” He said that when we did something about our sewage, he was ready to talk about our air.

That is a pretty tough argument to follow up on. It is pretty tough to say, “No. My air is more important than your water”. It is not an argument that one is going to win. As a result, we left it at a draw. I came back home and said that I was going to fight like heck to stop that from happening in my country.

We talk about the pure, clean water we have and yet we have over 300 boil water warnings at any given time. Who would have thought that in a country like Canada we would not be able to drink the water wherever we are in this country? I am embarrassed that this is the case. I believe we must dedicate ourselves to fixing that problem because it is a serious problem.

Why did we not get a bill on that issue instead of this one? We could have very quickly transferred our parks. That has been done anyway. It is not a major thing. It is a housekeeping item. Let us talk about sewage. Let us talk about water. Let us talk about those kinds of things.

We have over 50,000 contaminated sites. We have a minimum of 8,500 federal contaminated sites. Let us talk about identifying, prioritizing and going after them. That would be a piece of legislation that a lot of Canada would be very interested in.

Let us talk about the record of cleanups. I do not think the people of Sydney will tell us that they are all that impressed with the speed at which the Sydney tar ponds have been cleaned up. Yes, there have been plans, and yes, there have been failed plans, but really there has been little else.

Let us talk to the parents of young children in Toronto. Let us talk about the smog warning days when little Johnny should not go out and when grandma should not leave her home because of the air that is not clean enough and could in fact damage their health. Obviously this something we can deal with.

Let us talk about landfills. Last week I went to British Columbia. On my way, I picked up a paper. On the front page of the Ottawa Citizen last Thursday, I saw that the City of Ottawa is being sued for $45 million. What is it being sued for? It is being sued for the seepage out of its landfill site, which has contaminated neighbouring property.

What about those brownfields that no one will insure? They have full servicing past them, costing municipalities a lot of money, but they cannot be used because of potential contamination and future lawsuits. Those lawsuits are starting to come.

This is our Canada that we are talking about. This is our environment that we are talking about. This is in the top five issues of all Canadians.

Are there solutions? Yes, there are. There are many solutions. There are solutions to that water problem. We need to understand our aquifers. We need to understand the charge and recharge. We need to understand the quality and pollution issues. We need to look at all of that. We need legislation that will help the provinces and municipalities to do that.

I had an interesting time at the end of August. My wife enjoyed it. I promised her a nice holiday at the end of August and in early September. I said to her, “Guess where we're going? By the way, did I tell you I have a few appointments on our holiday?” Our first appointment was at an incinerator. She has been to many other incinerators, so she knew where we were going. We visit landfill sites. We have been doing that for only about 35 years.

One day, we were picked up about 7:30 in the morning and we went to the most modern incinerator there is in downtown Copenhagen. It is fascinating because it is an incineration plant that is using the most modern technology. It has recycling at the front end, with cement products, building materials, glass and that sort of thing. Then the rest is put into a huge hopper. That big hopper then feeds it into a big turning drum, of which there are six, and that garbage is then turned and rotated. It is brought up to 100° Celsius. In this case, gas was used.

I went on another holiday with my wife to Berlin. We found it was using the methane from the fermentation of sewage for fuel. These cities are recycling this. That garbage is incinerated and the combustion from that goes from 100° Celsius to 1,000° Celsius, which creates steam. Animal waste and sewage can also be burned. The steam then drives a turbine which then produces electricity, which is sold. It takes that steam, cools it down and distributes that hot water.

The particular system travels 104 kilometres. It has a 2% loss of energy in that 100 kilometres, and the heat is sold. Now there is income from the electricity and from the heat. Then that flue gas runs through a number of treatments. Various chemical processes are used in this. One involves using ammonia and the sulfur dioxide from the flue gas, which becomes 85% on the first pass, is turned into gypsum, which is used in making wallboard. That gypsum is then sold, another source of income.

The nitrous oxide is then broken down into its component parts and that nitrogen is then turned into fertilizer, which provides a new source of fertilizer, which is sold to the agricultural community. The CO

2

is captured is gasified and that gasified CO

2

is then put into titanium containers, which are then sold to the greenhouse industry. Remember that the best use of CO

2

is photo synthesis. By adding more CO

2

to greenhouses, production can be greatly increased. It can also be sold to Norway, where it is put into wells and improves the recovery of gas and oil by sequestering it under the ground. Now the CO

2

is gone.

Heavy metals now have been precipitated out and those heavy metals then can be sold to industry and recycled. The dioxins are separated out and further incinerated.

The point in this whole rant, if one wants to call it that, is that is the kind of vision and legislation we need in the House. It is environmentally sound and it will make a difference. It will deal with our air quality situation, our water pollution situation and provide income.

This is the final thing on garbage. I enjoy visiting these places. I am not sure my wife has the same joy. The neat part is the plant I visited is owned by 11 municipalities in 21 towns and cities. They took out a 25 year mortgage on it. That is how it was financed. Yes, it is more expensive than a landfill, but think about what they have done. The mortgage has been paid off, and they now have a resource from which they can make profit.

I could go on for a long time on the subject of the environment. I think I have demonstrated that in the past. I look forward to the opportunity of talking about the other kinds of bills that could come forward. Let us get the housekeeping done quickly and move on to some more substantial environmentally sound bills.

Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Anyone who has hunted ducks or geese will know that the regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act are in place to ensure that hunting never threatens the survival of the hunted species. These regulations are amended annually, taking into account the status of bird populations. Canadian officials meet with their United States counterparts, comparing information so that there can be consistency in approach.

The result of this system, using scientific information derived in cooperation with the U.S. government, consultations, regulations and, where appropriate, enforcement, has ensured that the overhunting of migratory birds will not put any species at risk. Indeed, under this consultation regime, Canadians and Americans continue to enjoy healthy populations of waterfowl.

As has been pointed out by other members, the Migratory Birds Convention Act deals with hunting, but it is not just about hunted species. In fact, the majority of species protected under the act are non-game species. Many other species that could be game species under the migratory birds convention are not hunted in Canada, such as the white-rumped sandpiper.

Before I tell hon. members about the sandpiper, it will be of interest to persons in the House to know that when the original Migratory Birds Convention Act was debated here, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was leader of the opposition. He rose to make the point that I am making now, that the Migratory Birds Convention Act must not be just for the protection and use of hunted species, but for the protection of the valuable and much appreciated non-game as well.

The migratory birds convention makes an international commitment for Canada ensuring the preservation of migratory birds while they are within our country, using a uniform system of protection. The Migratory Birds Convention Act and the migratory birds regulations accomplish this. They fit together to make an effective system for the protection of bird species from unsustainable uses.

As part of this protection, it is illegal today to put substances such as oil into habitats frequented by birds, but the system is not complete. This bill ensures that such provisions and prohibitions can be enforced to the edge of Canada's exclusive economic zone if need be.

The migratory birds convention was amended in 1995. Those amendments were brought to this House in 1999. One of the most important steps taken in these amendments was to modernize the convention wording. In 1916, when the convention was first drafted, words such as habitat and conservation did not have the meanings that we use today.

United States President Theodore Roosevelt is given credit for developing the concept of conservation for wise use, thereby initiating the concept of conservation in its modern sense. Conservation as applied by President Roosevelt meant that any uses of nature should be sustainable, that management should be backed up by scientific study, that all natural resources in an area are interrelated, and that conservation is a public responsibility.

The migratory birds convention has always been a model for international management of shared species. Brought up to date with the 1995 amendments, it speaks of principles of conservation. Among these it states that migratory bird populations should be managed internationally, across borders, that a variety of sustainable uses should be ensured, and that habitats for the conservation of migratory birds should and must be protected.

These are good sound principles for birds and for Canada. If we look to the sustainability of bird life, we will in large measure ensure our own future and preserve Canada's unique position among the world's nations as a place of abounding natural beauty and resources.

Protecting birds and their habitat is not only important to ensuring the sustainability of the Canadian economy, it also provides direct economic benefits. As stated in the national round table on environment and economy's report: “The case for nature conservation in Canada is more than simply environmental, aesthetic or spiritual: it is increasingly economic”.

Let us talk about birds and the economy. The economic contribution of birdlife in Canada has been estimated to number in the billions of dollars annually. First, the amount that people spend directly on bird related nature activities comes close to a billion dollars.

According to a survey conducted by StatsCan, Canadians spent almost $824 million as part of their annual hunting activities in 1996. Of this amount, that year, bird hunting accounted for $184 million. In the same survey, wildlife viewing accounted for approximately $1.3 billion.

Other surveys have shown that expenses primarily related to birdwatching make up the largest portion of wildlife viewing expenses. The economic value of bird related activity comes close to a billion dollars.

Beyond this, consider the economic activity that is coming from nature related businesses: tourism, retail sales, outdoor goods and a wide variety of service industries. They all benefit from secondary economic effects from hunting and viewing of migratory birds. Information gathered by the survey outlined the importance of nature to Canadians. That showed that nature related activities generate approximately 215,000 jobs in Canada. Our estimate of the economic benefits of birds rises from the first billion to several billion dollars.

Let us talk just for a moment about birds as national symbols. Despite the compelling argument that these economic figures present, not all of society's needs can be quantified or translated into economic terms. Canadians assign intrinsic value to the natural environment and birds are part of the national identity and are of tremendous cultural and spiritual importance to Canadians.

Attempts to ascribe a value to the ability to watch a great blue heron in its early morning hunt or a flock of dunlins feeding at Robert's Bank along their annual journey will inevitably fall short. While many describe this value in the context of the quality of life benefits associated with the natural world, the importance of nature transcends these simple measures for many people and many cultures for whom it is strongly linked with their spiritual and in fact religious beliefs.

Let us talk about the impact on human health. I have spoken of economic benefits and of the spiritual benefits. However, the benefits in terms of the impact on human health cannot be understated or overrated. These actions to protect the ecosystems of migratory birds are an important element of sustaining human health. Healthy wetlands, for example, are not only important to many bird species and other wildlife, but are also integral to maintaining water quality and the quality that human life depends on, healthy forests that provide for habitats for birds.

I could go on in terms of safe sources of food and drinking water, and clean air that we breathe and relate that to a quality of life that we enjoy.

I have spoken about the value of migratory birds generally and it is tremendous. I have also spoken about the value of birds as food. Two species valued for their meat in Newfoundland, for example, bring us back to the Grand Banks. Busy shipping lanes and the results that oil spills have had have been devastating to the fisheries in Newfoundland, and have had an impact across our country and an impact throughout the world.

I am satisfied and I hope that members of the House will support this bill. The Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, will be better, not only when the topic is the oiling of birds at sea, but for the protection of migratory birds throughout the country.

I urge the House to support this bill. I know that all members of the House can look forward with me to the day when the sight of oil stained dead and dying seabirds in the bays and on the beaches of Canada's coast can be forgotten.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, particularly since I spoke when Bill C-34 was introduced during the last Parliament.

It is always a bit strange to hear mainly from the Liberal members, whether new or old. Everyone agrees that it is a real natural catastrophe that 300,000 migratory birds die yearly, oiled to death as it were, thanks to the thoughtless dumping by ship operators.

The real question that has to be asked is this one, however: why a second bill? Why was Bill C-34 not passed during the last session? Another 300,000 migratory birds will have died in the meantime. The reason: lobbying. The shipping company lobby controls this Liberal government, and it is the Liberals who introduce the bills.

What is the only change that has been brought in, between Bill C-34 and C-15? The matter of due diligence. Therein lies the problem: the shipping lobby was not happy with Bill C-34. All parties in opposition—or at least the Bloc Québécois—spoke out against the fact that Bill C-34 gave the excuse of due diligence to the owners, the shipping companies, the board members, the masters, the crew. They had the opportunity to plead due diligence.

Today, they want to amend the various items under 280. A new term is added to each, both for directors and officers, in 280.1, and for the master and chief engineer in 280.02. Clause 280.1 therefore reads as follows:

280.1 (1) Every director and officer of a corporation shall take all reasonable care to ensure that the corporation complies with:

In the previous Parliament, Bill C-34 gave them the excuse of due diligence. Now, they are told they have to exercise due diligence, but this little word, diligence, is still in the legislation and will give them a way out in court. That is why I am warning my colleagues who will be sitting on the committee, because there lies the problem.

Why did Canada never pass legislation, leaving 300,000 migratory birds to die every year for decades? Simply because the shipowners' lobby is more powerful than the Liberal Party. It is that simple.

It has been persuaded not to pass legislation. To prevent these birds from dying, we need efficient legislation, fines and prison sentences. That is what the law provides. But this bill is still pushing this due diligence defence.

All of us, and those listening as well, when we pollute, we have to pay damages. Just think of all those who travel across Quebec all summer long in their campers and RVs. There are designated dumping stations. Standards have to be complied with.

In the transportation industry, however, there were no such standards. Naturally, we have to put in place legislation—and I am saying this for the benefit of those listening—dealing with basic respect for human beings and, in this case, for migratory birds and the entire animal population. We realize that, in this society of ours, there is a category of operators, namely ship operators, that did not have to comply with basic standards like those prohibiting all dumping of bilge water in the ocean or in the St. Lawrence river. Obviously, with dramatic results.

That having been said, I hope that the bill will be passed quickly, after very strict penalties have been included of course. As several of my colleagues indicated, we also need tools for monitoring. The other way out for the government not to enforce the legislation is not to provide the Coast Guard and all stakeholders with the tools they need to board and examine ships.

We must be able to enforce this legislation. It is fine to pass a bill, but we must have the money necessary to enforce it. Otherwise, as experts are telling us, Canada will continue to be the place in the world where the largest number of migratory birds die because of pollutants released by ships.

This is yet another accomplishment of the Liberal Party of Canada. Perhaps it takes pride in being considered the world's worst polluter. By contrast, Bloc Québécois members, and other members in this House, have much more of a social conscience. We hope that there will be a standard, that there will be enough money, so that the Coast Guard and all the stakeholders are able to board these ships. We must have the means to send these people to jail.

Do not worry. After a few of these individuals have spent time in jail and have had to pay huge fines, they will take all the necessary measures to avoid polluting again.

Every year, 300,000 migratory birds die. This is a tragedy. But it does not end there. Environmental experts are saying that we are the most tolerant country regarding such releases. This means that we are among those who do the most damage to migratory birds in the world. This is sad.

We talked about Bill C-34 over the past two years. We will still debate Bill C-15 for a while in this House. Despite all this, the industry has not changed its way of doing things. It is still releasing pollutants, with the result that, year in year out, we continue to lose 300,000 migratory birds, in addition to all the damage caused to wildlife, which has yet to be assessed.

Again, this is all a pretence. In this Parliament, lobbyists have traditionally been more powerful than politicians. However, Canadians changed that in the last election by electing a minority government, thus giving much greater powers to the opposition. People will see how these powers are used. They will see what the opposition will do when the time comes to make the necessary amendments to this bill. This legislation should truly be a deterrent for those who do these terrible things.

Why would oily matter be discharged into ocean waters and the Gulf of St. Lawrence? This is done simply because it costs a lot less than having the necessary equipment to process it immediately on board. Processing consists in discharging good water and keeping pollutants for subsequent release in areas equipped for that purpose, such as in the ports when the ship docks.

Somehow money is the reason again, but savings are made at the expense of wildlife. Migratory birds suffer the consequences; some 300,000 birds die annually.

It is a sad commentary on this Parliament. We are not able to pass legislation. Bill C-34 is a good example. The strong opposition we have right now in this minority government will probably manage to get the point across that we cannot tolerate such pollution in our territorial waters. That is why the zone was increased from 12 nautical miles to 200. With a strong opposition like the one we have now, we will have a decent bill.

We will make sure that this standard is respected by all users, but especially by the marine transportation industry, so that the shipowners will not win. We will try to rein them in. That is the goal so that 300,000 migratory birds no longer have to die each year.

There is still a problem. A minority government can always end up forced into an election if its budget is defeated. I hope, once the bill is passed, that the government will allocate the necessary funds for the Coast Guard and all stakeholders to be able to stop this bunch of troublemakers, all these irresponsible people who discharge substances into our territorial waters that endanger our migratory birds.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice in support of this important bill, Bill C-15, which would have a dramatic impact on my riding, which is on the coast of the Atlantic, but impacts on all Canadians.

I would like tell members about a silent disaster that occurs across the coastline of the Atlantic, something that happens every winter. Those who walk our beaches and monitor our species can tell us about this. I am talking about the disaster of 300,000 seabirds, maybe more, that die every winter because some ships discharge their oily waste at sea.

Those ships are not allowed to do it and there are laws against it but the fact is that illegal discharge to some shipping interests is easier than the legal way of disposing of waste. They would rather risk getting caught and paying the fine, which is low. They know the enforcement of the law is not as strong as it could be or should be.

What is this stuff they dump in our oceans off the coast of my very own constituency of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour?

All ships generate waste oil that accumulates in the engine room bilges and drains down with the water. If we were to take a sample, we would always find there is oil on top of the water. The ship should separate out the oil with special separators. This is a special process that takes time. However, if the crew is pressed for time and speed, they may decide it is easier to pump it overboard at sea. They do this in the dark, in the fog, in bad weather and they do it away from port.

Discharging this waste legally in port costs up to several thousand dollars, but that is not a large amount compared to operating a ship or to port fees. Out in the ocean, though, if the ships is not caught, then it is free.

If the fines were higher, enforcement stronger and the chances of detection greater, the risk would be too great. We would provide the impetus to do the right thing.

Those who walk our beaches will tell us, and they have videos they can show us, that these birds wash ashore in large numbers. They are dead or else they are struggling to live.

A litre of oil may not seem like much, especially when dispersed over a large amount of ocean water, but a small drop the size of a quarter will do the deadly trick.

As a pinhole in a diver's suit might do the same kind of damage, the oil causes the natural defences of the birds to break down. The cold waters of the winter Atlantic seep in through that area and the birds begin to literally freeze to death.

This is not an incident from one winter. This has happened repeatedly. Volunteers along the coasts of the Atlantic and the Pacific do beach surveys on Sunday mornings and it is not uncommon for them to find anywhere from 1 to 15 birds on any given morning. The problem is not unknown to residents of the St. Lawrence or the Great Lakes. Some of these birds take days to die because they starve and freeze to death.

The waters of Atlantic Canada, including my riding where the problem is greatest, are an important crossroads for seabirds where productive marine waters support tens of millions of birds. They are also a stopping-off point for other species.

They are murres, puffins, dovekies and gulls, herring and great black-backed gulls, common eiders, Atlantic puffins, northern gannets, long-tailed ducks, common and red-throated loons, and double-crested cormorants. They are shearwaters and Albatrosses from the southern Atlantic. They are phalaropes, gulls, eiders and the eastern harlequin duck which is a listed species of special concern.

Our scientists now know that 80% of the dead birds found on the beaches of Newfoundland are dead because of chronic oil pollution. There is so much damage to so many species of wildlife and it is a preventable tragedy.

The legislation before us would address this problem by raising the fines under the Migratory Birds Convention Act to as high as $1 million for those who ignore our environmental laws. It would make these officers and operating companies and their directors accountable for their actions and help harmonize our approach with that of the United States where there have been consistently higher fines.

This act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would also provide clarity for enforcement officials, along with the owners and operators of vessels in waters under Canadian jurisdiction, including the 200 mile exclusion economic zone.

At this time we are able to say that none of the species I have talked about are at risk of extinction yet. However, how long will we be able to say that?

Our own government scientists say that it is clear that death by oiling at sea can significantly depress population numbers and population growth for long-lived seabird species, particularly when mortality levels are sustained, adults are impacted or species with small populations are affected.

Do we want to preside over the listing of some of these species when we could have done something about it, something that is so simple and would have such a large impact?

The legislation before us would send a message. It would tell those in the shipping industry who feel disregard for the species with which they share the ocean that we abhor what they are doing and that we will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

There are some in the shipping industry who feel it is deplorable that laws of Canada could be passed which could target individuals for acts of pollution and treat them like criminals in that they could be personally prosecuted.

People pollute; ships do not pollute. Marine pollution should not be equated to a parking offence. It is entirely appropriate that Canada demand that mariners and ship operators respect their own industry best practice policies and the laws of our nation.

It would tell the people of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, British Columbia and other coastline provinces that we too cherish the marine wildlife that makes us unique and enriches us all. It would tell Canadians that our environmental legislation meets the intent with which it was designed: to conserve and to protect.

Those are the messages we can send with action on the bill before us, action that can make a difference as early as the winter of 2005, as we are able to better detect those who break the law, as we are better able to prosecute those who we catch and as we are better able to deter others through large fines that do away with the practice of dumping oily waste as a cost of doing business.

As a member with a riding on a coast, I know we must do better but the bill affects all Canadians. Those are messages we can send, and I urge support for this simple approach that would do so much for our seabirds, for our oceans and for all Canadians.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-15, particularly after the brilliant speeches of the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Beauport—Limoilou, who, obviously in both cases, know this subject extremely well.

I must recognize that I am not an expert on environmental issues. However, when reading the bill, we do realize, as was mentioned by my two colleagues, that this move is late, but in the right direction. Indeed, the government wants to impose harsher penalties than those existing today on shipping companies that illegally dump toxic substances at sea.

That being said, even though this bill goes in the right direction, since it gives an implacable character to the bill that already existed, some aspects may still be questioned, particularly the fact that the government is retaining, perhaps indirectly, the possibility for the captain and the officers of the company to claim the defence of due diligence to avoid liability.

I know that the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will be extremely vigilant in committee. He will ensure that, despite the fact that this bill appears to be a step forward from existing legislation, reality will have to measure up. It will be possible to have much more effective legislation to ensure this illegal dumping no longer happens.

As you know—it has been mentioned many times, but it should be repeated for the benefit of those listening—more than 300,000 seabirds are killed each year off the coast of the Atlantic provinces by ships illegally dumping their polluted bilge as they pass through these waters. This is an extremely important bill for the protection of our environment, particularly in a context where everyone agrees that we must move toward sustainable development, in its social, environmental and economic aspects.

Another interesting point about the bill is that the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and related legislation will apply in the exclusive economic zone of Canada, that is, 200 nautical miles instead of the 12 miles provided in the previous legislation. Here we see a bill that not only provides much harsher sanctions but applies in a much larger geographical area.

It is also important to note that this bill applies to vessels and their owners and operators and subjects masters, chief engineers, owners and operators of vessels to a duty of care to ensure compliance with the act. I think that is very important. A law of this kind is not intended to punish offenders, when offences unfortunately occur, but to impress upon owners and operators their responsibilities to respect the rules.

In this way, as I mentioned, it is a step forward. We are worried—as we have mentioned before—because Bill C-15, even though it does not directly and explicitly provide for the defence of diligence, may make it possible for criminal liability to be avoided. In reading this bill, we thought that even if it is not explicit, the text would permit offenders to claim this recourse to diligence to evade their responsibilities. Thus, as I mentioned, I am convinced that my hon. friend from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will work in committee to make sure that such a defence is not possible and that there are no loopholes that could weaken the force of this law.

So this gives me the opportunity to take a step further in the areas I am more familiar with. We could have the best legislation possible to protect migratory birds against oil spills or illegal discharge of oil waste, but if we do not have the means to enforce the law, even with no reference to due diligence, we are back to square one.

I refer to two major issues that are linked to the difficulty the government has in enforcing the legislation right now and will have in the future, because of its inherent flaws. The Canadian Coast Guard for instance is understaffed. That has been criticized year after year by the Coast Guard spokespersons, whether it is before the Standing Committee on Finance—on which I had the opportunity to sit—or elsewhere.

If we cannot rely on a proper coast guard, we could have the best bill possible, but we would not be able to enforce it. This is exactly what my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was explaining this morning when he talked about the DNA legislation before the House. Without an RCMP detachment that can properly cover Quebec, we will not be able to enforce the laws even if we give them more teeth.

It is a simple matter of logic. If the federal government wants to improve the bill, and we support them on that, then they would have to ensure that the law enforcement agencies, including the Coast Guard, have all the personnel they need to catch the offenders. That is the first point I wanted to raise.

My second point is the flags of convenience. As we know, the number of such flags is increasing exponentially all over the world. This is a very serious issue. When he was the owner of the Canada Steamship Lines, which is now operated by his sons, the Prime Minister of Canada himself used these flags of convenience extensively. Canadians laws are difficult to enforce on ships that use flags of convenience. And so we wonder about the government's good faith and will to implement a fine bill. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou clearly showed how, at first glance, this legislation seems to address environmental concerns fundamentally. However, the Prime Minister of this government used such flags of convenience himself.

I remind the House that, when Canada Steamship Lines was bought by the current Prime Minister, it was not using any flags of convenience, only Canadian flags. Currently, the vast majority of CSL's ships are using flags of convenience. It was in 1986 that the company, then owned by the current Prime Minister, first took advantage of that technicality, which is unfortunately allowed by international laws, but which is now being used for purposes that were not originally intended. So, it was in 1986 that CSL first raised a flag of convenience on one of its ships. This is not ancient history; it is very recent. It occurred less than 20 years ago.

At the time, Canadian sailors on that ship, the Atlantic Superior , which was then at sea off the coast of Virginia, were told that they would lose their jobs at the end of the trip and that they would be replaced by Korean sailors, who would be paid $2.20 per hour and who would not enjoy any protection under Canadian labour laws. This is the problem with flags of convenience. We are well aware that countries that permit such registrations, there are 27 of them, generally have very lax laws, if any at all, on labour and workers' safety. I have just given an example. This probably explains why there have been so many deaths at sea in recent years. Indeed, these countries also have lax laws on the condition of ships, on the discharge of pollutants and on environmental protection in general.

If this government wants to be consistent, and I hope it does, it must not only amend the act by implementing the principles stated in Bill C-15 and ensure there are no legal loopholes to make the legislation less effective, it must also increase the Coast Guard staff and fight very aggressively against the use of flags of convenience, as the current Prime Minister unfortunately did with his former company, Canada Steamship Lines.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address hon. members today on an important bill for the protection of the marine environment and marine wildlife, namely, the bill to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA. The focus of my remarks will be on the amendments proposed for CEPA.

As hon. members may be aware, Canada has a long history in the development and implementation of federal laws to protect the marine environment. The number of birds dying is not acceptable and Canada needs to do more. The Canada Shipping Act has elements to promote the protection of the environment, such as provisions to control discharges at sea, but we need to do more. Hence, the amendment.

The federal Fisheries Act contains a general prohibition against the release of harmful substance into Canadian fishery waters. The Oceans Act of 1996 was the first marine related federal law to acknowledge a precautionary approach to the protection of Canada's marine environment. The Oceans Act also provides regulation-making authority to designate marine protected areas and to prohibit specific activities within those areas.

The Ocean Dumping Control Act, followed by the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1988, implemented the 1972 London convention on the prevention of marine pollution.

Lastly, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, replaced the CEPA of 1988 and implemented both the London convention and the 1996 protocol under that convention.

Over the past two or three years, CEPA, 1999, has faced the challenges of being unable to deal with the problems of discharges of oil by ships travelling in or passing through Canadian waters, discharges that bring about the death of migratory birds. As well, these releases occur in the exclusive economic zone, EEZ, and cannot be dealt with under current CEPA, 1999, because the enforcement provisions of the act do not stipulate that its provisions apply in the EEZ. Thus, the Government of Canada is finding it impossible to take action against and to rectify incidents of pollution in the exclusive economic zone.

Ships that dispose of oil at sea in a manner that is not incidental to the normal operation of a ship can escape Canada's jurisdiction. They do so by entering the exclusive economic zone or the high seas which are international waters. Given the current wording of CEPA, 1999, enforcement officers designated under the act have no authority to engage in hot pursuit of non-compliant ships.

The report entitled, “Seabirds and Atlantic Canada’s Ship-Source Oil Pollution”, published by the World Wildlife Fund in 2002, alleges that for Atlantic Canada alone there are approximately 2,500 spills or releases of oil and chemicals each year, and those are only the reported incidents. There may be more such harmful releases that are unreported and that Canada will have to track using aerial surveillance and other means. What purpose does aerial surveillance alone serve without the legislative and regulatory tools to take action in the face of environmental damages caused by spills and releases?

The amendment to CEPA, 1999, proposed in the bill would give the Government of Canada the authority to deal with polluting ships that discharge oil and other substances illegally. The bill would cut off their usual means of escape, namely to seek refuge in the exclusive economic zone or in international waters.

The amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, found in the bill are consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the act. The amendments being proposed in the bill are consistent with the concept that the user of a disposal at sea permit must be held accountable for actions under the permit and that the polluter operating without a permit and outside the confines of CEPA, 1999, will face the consequences for violations of these provisions.

Let me now proceed to describe in more detail the amendments to CEPA found in Bill C-15.

The first amendment to CEPA focuses on the act's provisions governing the disposal of wastes and other matters at sea. Currently, under the act, there are provisions which allow disposal of specified substance by permits. It is proposed that these prohibitions be expanded to include ships to ensure that both persons and ships are prevented from disposal without a permit.

The amendments will enforce that polluting ships, as well as persons who command them, can be subject to various enforcement actions, namely detention orders, environmental protection compliance orders and/or prosecution for committing such violations.

The amendment to add ships as being subject to prohibition against disposal at sea of illegal substances is crucial to holding Canadian and foreign ships to account for their pollution.

Another amendment targets the prohibition against incineration of waste at sea. In addition, the bill also examines the definition of disposal in part 7 of CEPA, 1999, with regard to the normal operations of a ship.

To ensure clarity on what is normal operations, amendments to the regulation will provide authority to the governor in council to make regulations on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment that would stipulate what is and what is not the normal operation of a ship. These are important clarifications because they are enabling provisions. It is not obligatory to use them, but they are available if regulations under the Canada Shipping Act do not address these points.

In keeping with the desire to hold both persons and ships accountable for their actions, the bill will also amend the section on recovery of costs incurred by the Minister of the Environment posed by ships or persons.

In December 2003 Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is now incumbent on the government to implement the convention under Canadian law. This is important not only for disposals at sea provisions, but for regulations made under CEPA, 1999, that govern export and import of ozone depleting substances, chemicals and living products of biotechnology that are new to Canada and to the export and import of hazardous waste.

To ensure the proper use of these powers in relation to foreign ships, the amendments in the bill are very important, Canada requires the means to assert its sovereignty and authority in the exclusive economic zone. The bill allows the government, through CEPA, 1999, to protect Canada's marine environment, while adhering to its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

I welcome the careful thought and attention of all members of the House in their examination of this bill and hope that they understand and support its merits.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-15. I want to go through a bit of the history of the bill. I think I asked my first question on oiled birds in the Atlantic in 1995 or 1996. From there I drew up a private member's bill which basically dealt with this. From there I drew up a policy which I was able to recommend to our party and which became party policy regarding oiled birds.

First I looked at Bill C-34. That was introduced the day before the House prorogued. Needless to say I was pleased there was a bill but went rather ballistic in that the bill was introduced at a time when I knew for sure, and everybody else knew, it could not be passed and that it would simply die on the order paper.

I must say that I am pleased to see that Bill C-15 has now surfaced, at what I hope is a better time so that is has a greater opportunity of moving through the House and through committee. Obviously any minor amendments that are needed can be made during the committee process. We will finally have a piece of legislation that we hope will help stop the problem which has gone on literally for decades in our Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Today I stand somewhat with relief that after so many questions in the House and so much work on this issue, finally we have a piece of legislation which, while not perfect, does come closer than anything else we have in place.

I want to touch on a bit of the background and a few of the areas that concern me about the bill. I am sure they will also concern members on all sides of the House when they look at the bill.

We should recognize there has been a lot of documentation. I am holding in my hands a document to which most members could refer. Certainly there is the web page done by the World Wildlife Fund entitled, “Seabirds and Atlantic Canada's Ship-Source Oil Pollution”. It details a lot references and provides a background to some of the history of the problem and why passage of this bill by the Canadian Parliament is so essential.

As well we need to recognize that a tiny oil spot on migratory birds means death. A bird need not be totally oiled for it to die. One tiny drop of oil will break the bird's insulation and will result very quickly in hypothermia and the death of that bird.

I spent time in Newfoundland and did an hour and a half radio show. At one point I literally saw the thousands of birds that wash up on the shore. I talked to many of the local people and heard how troubled they were that this was happening over and over again and nobody was doing anything about it.

Today a documentary is being produced on that very issue and of course it fits right in with this legislation. I will not be cynical and say that one of the motivations for this bill to show up so quickly may have been that it is a fairly high profile documentary being done on oiled birds in the Atlantic.

Before I move on we should also remember that the same problem exists on our Pacific coast. The problem there as I understand it is it is more scientifically difficult to document because the birds sink. The wave patterns and current patterns are different and therefore not nearly the number of birds are showing up on the Pacific coast, yet we believe the problem is probably just as great, if not greater, in that part of the world.

We have heard lots about the Exxon Valdez and that sort of thing. However, it would be very naive to believe that there are not other more minor oil spills occurring that would affect the birds there as well.

The number used in the Atlantic is 300,000. That is a documented scientific number. The local people would tell us that it is much higher than that. Some people would use figures like a million birds a year. None of these populations can sustain that sort of death toll and expect to remain viable.

Certainly for the people of the area, and I think for all Canadians, they would like to have the seabirds remain a viable population for a long time into the future.

What is the real problem? Why does this problem exist? It comes down to dollars and cents for shipping companies. Many of them do not even dock in Canada, but simply pass through our waters from the U.S. and Europe on the pathway that they travel.

The ships have bilge oil which they need to get rid of. For the shipping companies it is a matter of having to go to port, having to pump it out in port, having to pay for that, but most important, the time it takes to do it. For many of the companies, time appears to be their biggest problem.

It is understandable, I guess, from the captain's perspective that if he is expected to get between point A and point B in a certain amount of time, rather than go to port to dump the bilge, he is going to dump it into the ocean. It would also be reasonable to expect that when he knows that surveillance is very minimal and even if caught the fine is very small, he will take that chance.

It appears that is what has been happening for decades. There are records of oil release right from the 1950s on up, if we look at some of the reference material, and they probably occurred long before that. Therefore, it is the cost factor and the time factor for these ships.

This piece of legislation I hope will fix those two basic concerns that we have. First, the fines are going to be higher and if we make them comparable to the U.S. fines, we could be looking at fines of up to $1 million. With fines like that, they would not run the risk. If the fine was $3,000, well, it would be worth it to take the chance because they probably would not get caught. If the fine was $1 million, as they have been in some of the U.S. cases, they would really think about that. They would probably not be captain of the ship after doing that, if the company took action. Obviously the fine structure will help.

The next thing that is important is that we provide adequate facilities for these ships to move as quickly as they can to get rid of their bilge oil so they can move on. Obviously, we would be asking questions in committee as to what facilities are planned. Are they adequate? Do we need more? Are they as modern as they should be? What is the cost involved? Who is going to pay for that? Obviously, we would hope that the user could pay for a great deal of this because it should be in the best interest of the shipping business to speed this up.

We then also have to look at the surveillance. How are we going to catch these people? We do not have the number of Coast Guard staff, planes and so on that we would need, but there is a technological way to do this. I am not a technician; I do not understand how radarsat works exactly, but I understand it is accurate enough to find out who did it and to send a plane out.

Finally, the enforcement of all of this becomes most important. We have to stop the turf wars within departments. When one of the ships, the Tecam Sea , was brought in, justice was fighting, the Coast Guard was fighting, the military was fighting, environment was fighting over who was in control. As a result, the ship sailed away without ever paying the fine.

That sort of thing has to end. We must have surveillance. The penalties must be there. We must have the facilities that these shipping companies can use.

We will be supporting the bill. We will be looking at where we might improve it in committee. I congratulate the government for bringing it back so soon in this session. It is a much needed bill.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, introduced at first reading on October 26, 2004.

Note that this bill received very little consideration in the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The bill is the defunct Bill C-34, which was introduced in the 37th Parliament. The federal government wanted to pass the bill quickly by using the Liberal majority steamroller and without hearing testimony at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on the bill's repercussions and application.

I was a little surprised because a bill as important as this one certainly deserved special attention from the standing committee, which should have heard witnesses such as the Shipping Federation of Canada, or other representatives of the environmental sector. These witnesses could have explained how to improve Bill C-34.

The former Chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the former member for Davenport, will remember a session at the time when I became enraged at the behaviour of the Liberal members. I remember this bill was rammed through, and the Liberal MPs did not even want to hear witnesses.

Why not? Because it was the eve of the election campaign, and the Liberal Party of Canada was trying to make us forget the fines that some courts had imposed on Canada Steamship Lines. The government also wanted to show that it had good faith by tabling Bill C-34.

Today, a new version of this bill is being presented as Bill C-15. We are in favour of the principle of this bill because on this side of the House we believe that the practices of some companies with respect to coastal oil spills are totally unacceptable for the protection of migratory birds and their habitat and ecosystem.

It must always be kept in mind, if we really want to protect species, whether endangered, at risk or otherwise, it is always vital to protect the habitat. When companies behave irresponsibly, we have a duty, as legislators, to face up to our responsibilities and to introduce a more stringent bill.

I will come back later to the real repercussions Bill C-15 could have. We have to do more than just introduce a bill, we have to ensure that the bill itself, and the spirit of that bill, are respected in its application.

As I have already indicated, we are of course in favour of this bill in principle because, from the environmental point of view, it makes it possible to impose far stricter sanctions on shipping companies that discharge toxic substances illegally at sea.

I hope, however, that our committees will afford us the opportunity to hear a number of witnesses on this subject, unlike our experience in committee during the last Parliament. Then, the majority government literally shoved the bill through, giving us no opportunity to improve it. Unfortunately, that bill met a sad end.

This bill is an amendment to the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act. We must place that in its proper context. We on this side of the House have always admitted that this legislation was indeed within an area of federal responsibility. When various bills were being considered, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or Bill C-5 on species at risk, we always agreed that the migratory bird legislation and public lands were federal jurisdictions. The principle, the very spirit, of this bill confirms our willingness to respect an area that is, of course, federal.

We need much more rigorous legislation. Moreover, what the government is proposing is, in fact, harmonization, an adaptation of what is already done in the United States. We know that the laws there are much stricter than here in Canada.

In Canada, according to Environment Canada estimates, over 300,000 seabirds are killed each year off the coasts of the Atlantic provinces by ships that illegally dump their polluted bilge waters as they pass through these waters.

Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we needed to act quickly. Why go through the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994? Because this law applies in the exclusive economic zone of Canada, and because it is intended specifically to protect migratory birds from the effects caused by deposits of harmful substances in that zone. The provisions of the bill will now apply to vessels.

We should have taken action through more restrictive legislation. Nevertheless, some questions do arise about the actual enforcement and the desired effects of the bill before us. We must remember that in the past we have seen large-scale catastrophes, some of them on the east coast, in the Maritimes, that ended with fines of $20,000 or $30,000, sometimes up to $170,000 as in the case of the fishing boat Olga .

Measures were taken. What was the impact of these measures? One: we arrested the operators of the vessels. Two: we turned them loose. Three: fines were not paid to the federal government.

In short, I would like to tell the House that we support this bill in principle. We believe in more rigorous legislation. However, we must be sure that the measures that will be taken will have a real impact, so that the spirit of the law, that is, protection of our migratory birds, can take effect as soon as possible. We shall work in committee to improve this bill.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-15 which contains some important business left incomplete from the last Parliament. This bill will give us the capacity to curtail the killing of thousands of birds when ships far offshore try to save a little money or time by illegally discharging oily wastes overboard.

This bill is an overdue action to protect wildlife and represents one of the many tools that will comprise the ocean's action plan mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne demonstrated a solid commitment to the environment. It had no fewer than 13 initiatives that will help us make our environment healthier, while at the same time making our economy grow stronger.

Environment, health and the economy are not mutually exclusive concepts. We should not think of the environment on one hand and the economy on the other. The environment is our life support system: the air, the water and the land, together with the natural resources and species that surround us.

The source of all our wealth lies in the environment. Those countries who work now to reconcile environmental issues with the need to maintain a competitive economy will become the global economic engines of the 21st century.

Canada, with its rich environment, its wealth of natural resources, and its technological know-how and vigorous economy is well suited to seize the moment and to become a world leader among those that succeed in creating a robust economy based on sound environmental principles.

With environmental values forming the core of what it means to be Canadian, it is understandable that Canadians become outraged when they see outright illegal activities that damage our precious natural resources go unpunished. Canadians will not stand idly by and let thousands of harmless and defenseless seabirds die when there is something that can be done to prevent it, least of all when the source of the problem is really just a minor inconvenience for a few ill-behaved ship operators.

The Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans have an important place in the Canadian psyche. It is by traversing the Bering Strait that our first inhabitants reached the shores over 10,000 years ago. The first European explorers and settlers reached this land by sailing across the treacherous Atlantic.

The oceans have always been a major source of food for Canadians. They also comprise the major commercial links between our country and the rest of the globe. The oceans are another source of national pride. We must keep our oceans healthy.

The bill I am presenting to the House today, Bill C-15, is tangible proof that the government is taking action to keep our environment clean.

In 1916 Canada signed the migratory birds convention with the United States. This historic agreement committed our two nations to ensure the protection of bird species that were threatened by human activity. Since the agreement was signed several Canadian environmental protection laws have been passed, including the Canadian Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Fisheries Act, and the Canada Shipping Act, which includes sections relating to the environment.

Almost 90 years after the Migratory Birds Convention Act was first passed, it is now clear that an updating of this tool, as well as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is needed. It hardly needs stating that human activity can have devastating effects on the environment, whether due to intentional acts or as a result of a lack of awareness or understanding of the impacts of our activities.

I am addressing the House today to tell everyone about one controllable threat to wildlife resulting from human activity. The threat is real. It kills over 300,000 seabirds every year. The threat is the product of human activity and is in fact a wilful act of negligence.

The good news is that we have found a win-win solution to this problem. The proposed solution deals not only with the environmental impacts, but also has no impact on economic viability.

Let me explain the problem. Oil released in Canadian maritime waters by ship crews, whether through intentional discharges or accidental spills, can directly kill any seabird that it touches on the sea's surface. Crews that pump their bilge into the oceans pour hundreds of litres of oil into the water, at the same time leaving in their wake an oil slick several thousand square miles in size. These slicks, which often look like a sheen on the water behind the ships, become floating traps for seabirds. The slicks are deadly. All it takes is a single drop of oil the size of a quarter to kill one of our murres, puffins, dovekies or gulls.

The oil penetrates the natural defences of the bird affected and damages the unique structure of its feathers, which normally repel water and resist cold. The oil decreases the bird's insulation, waterproofing and buoyancy, leading to death by hypothermia or starvation. In addition, oil contains many harmful substances that when ingested or inhaled by birds, as they attempt to clean themselves, poison their internal organs and lead to debilitating or fatal consequences.

Once oiled, the birds carry on a desperate fight against the elements of the brutal cold and the ocean drains away their energy. It takes them days to die. It is a battle that they never win.

The main area where seabirds are oiled is off the southwest coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. More than 30 million seabirds and thousands of sea-going ships cross this sector every year.

The point I want to make clear is that this impact, this death of hundreds of thousands of seabirds every year, is completely avoidable. The technology exists today. Every major sea-going merchant ship must carry an oil separator on board. The separator allows for the oil to be separated from the water and then safely disposed of when it arrives in port.

Yet there are cases where this technology is not being used or is not being properly maintained. Time means money and sometimes a ship's operator may choose to dump oily wastes at sea rather than dispose of them in port. That would also save a small processing fee.

Yes, there can be fines when these offenders are caught. The record is not good. Ships continue to pollute and birds keep dying by the hundreds of thousands. Our legislation must have clear and practical enforcement powers, so the international shipping community will hear the message loud and clear, that Canada will not tolerate the senseless slaughter of birds by crews that hope to save a little time or money by flaunting international codes and Canadian environmental laws.

Currently, vessels that navigate our waters are subject to Canadian law. Canada has existing laws dealing with the potential environmental effects of ship traffic, including the release of oil into marine waters. These laws include the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Fisheries Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

However, recent court cases have revealed ambiguities in two parts of the legislative framework, making enforcement difficult. It is important that these amendments allow us to deal more effectively with law enforcement issues in cases of marine pollution and, in particular, the legislative measures that will provide clarity with respect to the new 200 mile exclusive economic zone by affirming that enforcement officers have authority in this area.

Second, we are increasing the fines under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, to a million dollars with this bill. The increased maximum fine brings the legislation into better conformity with the modern business of shipping, which is big business.

This bill is also aimed at fostering greater collaboration on law enforcement measures and will provide the means to pursue offenders and will provide sentencing guidelines so penalties will be imposed that appropriately reflect the damage done to the environment. The bill does not require us to create a new agency nor does it ask us to develop new policies. It is about saving birds and it is about doing the right thing. I would ask members in the House to support the legislation.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

That Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.