House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was offenders.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would like to continue with question period, but perhaps the question could be put in some other way. Is there unanimous consent?
Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering BoardRoutine Proceedings
Moncton New Brunswick
Liberal
George S. Rideout LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Governments of the United States and Canada for the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board.
The report sets out results achieved and benefits produced under the treaty for the period from October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993.
Canadian Environmental Protection ActRoutine Proceedings
Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis Québec
Liberal
Clifford Lincoln LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in both official languages, for the period April 1992 to March 1993.
Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Kingston and the Islands Ontario
Liberal
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the report of the Standing Committee on Transport on Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding priority usage in committee rooms.
Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994Routine Proceedings
Etobicoke Centre Ontario
Liberal
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in those statutes and to repeal certain provisions of those statutes that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on Wednesday, June 8, 1994 be concurred in. I believe the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster will second the motion. I also believe there is consent in the House for the adoption of this motion.
The motion is one which deals with concurrence in a report that recommends a series of technical changes to the standing orders of the House that were approved unanimously in the procedure and House affairs committee. The changes in the rules will not come into effect until after the House adjourns at the end of June, but I think they are ones that will be helpful to
members in their dealings in the House. I will not go into the details of them at this point.
(Motion agreed to.)
Francis Leblanc Liberal Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present two petitions signed by several hundred constituents.
The first petition, which has over 800 signatures, wishes to draw the attention of the House to the following: That the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and that human life at the pre-born stage is not protected in Canadian society. Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Francis Leblanc Liberal Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS
The second petition has some 670 signatures and draws the attention of the House to the following: That the majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens who respect the law and the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life. The majority of Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives not to end them.
The petitioners therefore pray that Parliament will ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced rigorously, and that Parliament makes no changes to the law which would sanction or allow the abiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and present four petitions to the government requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are concerned about the undefined phrase sexual orientation. There is a legitimate concern that such a broad term could include all kinds of sexual behaviour.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents. They are asking this government not to repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow doctor assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table a petition from a group of senior citizens in my riding who are calling upon the Canada Post Corporation to restore a service which has been modified.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today also. This particular petition comes from Macleod, Claresholm, Pincher Creek and a number of other communities in my constituency.
The specific issue is the change of the human rights act to allow the undefined phrase sexual orientation. This petition decries such a step and I agree with this petition.
Bob Wood Liberal Nipissing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by roughly 800 constituents in my riding of Nipissing. They call upon the government to support the efforts of Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy in her quest to have the importation of killer cards seized at the Canada-United States border and to stop the distribution in Canada.
They also would like to call upon the government to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Shall all questions stand?
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
EnvironmentGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I do not want to delay debate but I want to remind all members that it being Friday and under normal circumstances the debate will conclude at 1.30 p.m. I would therefore ask members who are participating that
their questions and answers be as brief as possible so that I might allow on your behalf as many of you to participate in the debate as possible.
The clock will start on the 10-minute question and comment period to the member for Comox-Alberni and I will recognize first the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.
Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I take your remarks under advisement.
The question has to do with national standards in the area of the environment. There have been times in the last week during the unity debate, et cetera, where we as members of Parliament were getting mixed signals from the Reform Party as to its commitment for national standards.
Quite simply, would the member tell this House if he shares the view of this side of the House? We believe in the area of the environment that we should commit to national standards and this House of Commons, the Government of Canada, is the best place to make sure those national standards are maintained.
Bill Gilmour Reform Comox—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to respond because the Reform Party does indeed believe in national standards.
Part of the problem with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been the overlap between provincial and federal government regulations. There is one party in this House which would choose to have it all in the provinces, but we do not take that position. We feel strongly that the role of the federal government is to provide the umbrella for overseeing documents.
I look forward to looking at this area of overlap in the standing committee. Clearly over the last six years it has been an area of disagreement in CEPA. The overlap has not in my view been to the benefit of the implementation of the act because it is grinding things down rather than helping to get the work done.
I hope I have answered the member's question. If not, we can deal with it further in the lobby.
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I ask that if I do not take up all my time I be allowed to share it with the member for York-Simcoe.
I support the motion put forward by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to refer the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for review.
One of my responsibilities as Minister of Health consist in protecting the health of Canadians against hazards posed by environmental contaminants. As part of my mandate, I share responsibility with the Minister of the Environment for the administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Health Canada looks after protecting the health and well-being of Canadians against any adverse effect of pollution. I believe that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is and will continue to be a major legislative tool when it comes to protecting public health.
Canadians are concerned about adverse effects the environment may have on their health. Such concerns were clearly expressed during the 1990 consultations on the green plan.
At that time, Canadians were invited to express their views on the subject in public fora. They suggested that certain priorities be recognized with respect to actions to be taken to deal with environmental problems and their health implications.
Canadians stated unequivocally that they wanted the government not only to clean up the environment, but also to protect human health. They also told us they wanted to have the information and knowledge required to take action, individually and collectively, regarding the environment.
Canadians have realized that their health and well-being depend not only on the environment, but on environmentally sustainable development. Canadians count on the leadership the government can provide in that area by developing appropriate protection mechanisms.
Every Canadian is at risk in his or her daily life. Some risks are related to behaviour while others are related to the social or physical environment in which we live and work.
Health Canada is responsible for informing the public as to the risks over which each of us can, to a certain extent, have direct control.
CEPA is an important tool for protection against the health risks of environmental contamination. Individuals have little direct control over some of these. Clean air and water and a safe and nutritious food supply are the basic requirements for health. Without them how can we have sustainable development?
During the green plan consultation chemical contamination of air, water and food was high on the list of concerns of Canadians. The resulting green plan program made clear the connection between the environment and health. It embodied an action plan on health and the environment for which I am responsible. A number of activities under the action plan address the issue of environmental contaminants and health.
For example, in the latest phase of the Great Lakes program, Great Lakes 2000, $25.5 million is allotted for addressing health
concerns. The goal is to reduce human exposure and risk to pollution by 30 per cent by the year 2000.
Another program under the action plan concerns drinking water. I would like to bring to Parliament Canada's first federal legislation covering drinking water safety. The act would legislate drinking water quality in the federal domain, for example on reserves. It would also establish standards for materials and chemicals used in water and water treatment devices.
The action plan also gave additional support to CEPA in order to accelerate the risk assessment of high priority environmental contaminants. These examples show clearly that the primary concern of my department in all of these activities is the threat posed to the health and well-being of Canadians by exposure to environmental contaminants.
On the issue of chemicals they can bestow enormous benefits, indeed a host of substances enhance our standard of living. However some chemicals may pose risks to health. In our pursuit of progress we must ensure that human health is not compromised. Such protection is part of the essential fabric of CEPA, particularly in part II of the act where, in concert with the Minister of the Environment, we have responsibilities for the assessment and management of toxic substances.
We need to seek new ways to deal with these increasingly complex problems. Hence the timeliness of the parliamentary review which provides an opportunity to examine ways to better deal with these chemicals.
For many Canadians environmental quality is seen largely from a health perspective. Public opinion polls conducted over the past few years have found that a large majority were very concerned about toxic chemicals for health reasons.
Canadians are living longer, healthier lives than ever before. We are already among the healthiest people in the world. We enjoy a high standard of living in a beautiful country, blessed with abundant natural resources. In order to sustain and further improve our health and well-being we must never let down our guard and become complacent about the risks posed by environmental pollution.
I believe that CEPA has been an important step in addressing these concerns. CEPA deals with the issue of toxic substances in the environment through a powerful framework for identifying, assessing and managing toxic substances.
Prevention has a long history in public health where a basic tenet has been the need for measures to prevent illness and disease. Our concepts of health and environment are broadening and expanding.
As recently as half a century ago health meant simply not being ill. Health is now seen as a resource for everyday living, an essential part of the quality of life. Good health is no longer simply the responsibility of the individual. It has come to involve the interaction between individuals, their communities and the environment.
Our concept of the environment has also expanded and includes not only our natural surroundings but also our homes, our work places and our communities.
These broadened concepts of health and environment need to be considered in the renewal of CEPA. Over the years the federal government has enacted a number of statutes which exercise some form of control over toxic substances. My department carries out its health promotion role primarily by enforcing various federal laws and regulations. Some are our sole responsibility, for example the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, and of course the Tobacco Products Control Act.
I would be remiss if I did not mention some of the achievements to date: The development of regulations in partnership with Environment Canada for ozone depleting substances, PCBs, vinyl chloride, dioxins and furans from pulp and paper mills, the notification regulations for new chemicals and polymers and, last, gasoline regulations which required the accelerated phase-out of leaded fuel which has a significant impact in reducing human exposure to lead.
As well, earlier this year with Environment Canada we released the remaining assessments of the original 44 substances on the first priority substances list to meet the five-year deadline imposed by the act. I understand that no other jurisdiction in the world has completed a comparable task in so short a time.
In closing, let me reaffirm my support for the referral of CEPA to the parliamentary committee. I recognize the importance and magnitude of the task before it and I look forward to contributing the knowledge and expertise of my department to its work.
I look forward to supporting the committee as it looks at how a renewed Canadian Environmental Protection Act may contribute to creating and sustaining an environment that will not only maintain but enhance our health.
Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, pollution has been a prominent threat to Canada's environment for many decades. Since 1988 the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has enabled the federal Minister of the Environment to regulate environmental pollution at the national level. Through an ecosystem approach it addresses pollution problems on land, in water and in all layers of the atmosphere.
CEPA was designed to improve the government's environment record and standards on federal lands as well as First Nations lands and to enable Canada to fulfil its international environmental protection obligations.
The act covers a number of regulations ranging from controls on CFCs through pulp and paper effluence to PCB storage. In the red book a Liberal government pledged to use the five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make pollution prevention a national goal and to strengthen the enforcement of federal pollution standards. This is exactly what this government intends to do.
The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is an excellent choice to undertake this review. The committee will be able to assess the effects of toxic substances on the health of entire ecosystems. We must take advantage of this opportunity to review CEPA and learn more about the effects of toxic substances on the environment.
We must identify and improve our understanding of atmospheric pollutants. The health of our ecosystems ultimately affects human health. Although the link between ecosystem health and human health is complex, we cannot ignore an ecosystem which is ailing. We cannot ignore fish with tumours caused by toxins, birds with crossed bills caused by eating contaminated fish and reproductive problems in wildlife that eat fish.
We cannot help but fear that human health is also in jeopardy since they are so inextricably linked. Fortunately Canada still has a number of rivers and lakes which can be considered clean. Yet we also have ecosystems that have been contaminated by industrial effluence, agricultural and urban run-off. There has been some progress made in slowing the degradation of Canada's ecosystems.
In order to ensure a healthy environment for future generations, we must develop new ways to protect our resources. I believe we must review CEPA as one part of our strategy to create a sustainable environment. We must make appropriate amendments in order to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century.
In the past, Canada has concentrated on regulating the release of pollutants. This approach has had success. However I also feel that we must develop new approaches that target pollution prevention at the source to complement CEPA. Manufacturing innovations and other environmental technologies are needed to correct the problem where it is created.
Currently Canada has about 4,500 environmental firms employing 150,000 people with combined revenues in excess of $11 billion. By the year 2000 the International Monetary Fund has forecasted that the environmental technology market is anticipated to reach $600 billion.
I believe that this government should support Canadian entrepreneurs and their endeavours to seize opportunities in this industry. Canada has developed a global reputation as an environmental leader and we must continue to build on this role. New environmental technologies and services will promote economic growth in Canada. New technologies will also enable us to clean up and prevent environmental problems.
In the pulp and paper industry, new technology has reduced the quantity of suspended solids and oxygen depleting material in mill effluent. Just a few weeks ago I had the wonderful opportunity to tour a pulp and paper mill which is committed to cleaner production technologies and improved waste treatment.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan was kind enough to extend an invitation to Avenor mill in his riding. I was very impressed by its water treatment system and recycling efforts. This plant has significantly reduced the concentration of toxic substances in mill effluents.
Representatives from across the country have come to see the remarkable technological innovations this company has undertaken. We must applaud its effort and support future endeavours like this. I believe that CEPA has played a major role in identifying problems and forcing companies to realize that old environmentally harmful practices are not acceptable. However it is environmental technologies that have enabled companies to remedy the problem and promote more sustainable futures.
In the review of CEPA we must ensure that the federal government does not overlap and duplicate provincial regulations. We must work with the provinces to streamline and harmonize our efforts in order to cut costs and reduce confusion and frustration for environmentalists and industrialists.
Currently the Canadian Council of Environmental Ministers is in the process of working toward this end. Government and regulation are not just top down policies. I firmly believe that action at the community level is where real change occurs.
In the riding of York-Simcoe which I represent, the SOS Alliance has launched a public awareness of Lake Simcoe's serious phosphorous pollution problem in order to save Lake Simcoe.
Currently thousands of tonnes of sediment and phosphorous are being dumped into the lake every year from urban and rural sources, twice the amount that the lake requires to evolve naturally. Evidence proves that the water quality has deteriorated.
The SOS Alliance realizes that protecting Lake Simcoe ultimately protects our way of life and the entire ecosystem in the Lake Simcoe basin. In addition, by saving Lake Simcoe, a
natural resource worth $500 million annually to the economy of the Lake Simcoe watershed will also be saved.
A healthy economy and standard of living are dependent upon a healthy environment. The public has shared an interest and a responsibility in the environment. Therefore, the public should be able to access information easily and should also play a role in the shaping of new laws and policies as well as becoming involved in community based environmental projects.
Once the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is given the task to review CEPA, I, as vice-chair of this committee, will work with my colleagues to ensure that all sectors are consulted in our review process. I firmly believe that a review of CEPA with extensive consultation is a step in the right direction to ensure that Canada as a nation will be able to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century.