Mr. Speaker, to put this amendment into perspective, I would like to pay homage to the hon. member for Frontenac and the hon. member for Terrebonne. They participated in the work of the committee which produced a report over a year ago proposing the measures contained in this bill, namely the creation of the position of the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development.
Both the hon. member for Terrebonne and the hon. member for Frontenac conducted themselves in committee in a very constructive manner. In the conclusion of their dissenting report, they outlined three principles. One of the three principles reads as follows: "It is imperative that the economic and environmental aspects of federal government decisions and policies be intrinsically linked". We fully agree with that principle. We applaud the hon. member for Terrebonne and the hon. member for Frontenac for having concisely put forward such an important concept.
However, we have enormous difficulties in reconciling the political direction which was taken by the hon. member for Laurentides and her colleagues. They are running in conflicting directions. They are not reinforcing each other. The motion of the hon. member for Laurentides which is now before us dismantles and ridicules the concluding principle I have just read.
That is what the amendment the committee proposes, which the hon. member for Laurentides wants to wipe out, intends to do. It intends to intrinsically link the environmental and economic aspects of government decisions. The hon. member for Laurentides is proposing to wipe out this important concept.
This is a very sad moment. The amendment by the hon. member for Laurentides means that her party is not in favour of protecting the health of Canadians. This is what her amendment would achieve.
Her party is against the integration of the environment and the economy. This is what the amendment would achieve. Her party is against the protection of the ecosystem. That is what her amendment proposes. Her party is against meeting international obligations. That is what her amendment would achieve. Her party is against the promotion of equity. That means that her party is in favour of inequities. That is the effect of her amendment.
Her party is against an integrated approach to planning and making decisions which take into account the environmental and natural resource cost of different economic actions. That is what her amendment would achieve.
Her amendment would eliminate the principle of pollution prevention. Does that mean the Bloc Quebecois is against pollution prevention? That is the net effect of the amendment. The net effect of the amendment is to delete pollution prevention from the bill. The net effect of the amendment is to eliminate the concept of protecting the health of the public, of protecting the ecosystems and of meeting international obligations.
Finally, the net effect of the amendment is to eliminate the respectful nature and the needs of future generations. In other words, the effect of the amendment is to say that the Bloc Quebecois rejects the Brundtland report and the definition of sustainable development. As the parliamentary secretary to the House leader already asked, is that the direction the member for Laurentides has received from her leader? Is that the new political direction of the Bloc Quebecois? Or, is it perhaps that the member for Laurentides badly needs a psychiatrist to remove her obsession with federal-provincial relations, her obsession with seeing under every chair a federal monster, a federal presence which may disrupt the quiet life of the people in her riding?
It is absurd to say that the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois reflects the majority of thought of members of her party for whom I have the highest respect. I do not recognize in the amendment the preachings, the interventions or the thoughtful examination I have experienced when the member for Frontenac and the member for Terrebonne were members of the committee. This is diametrically opposed to what I have heard from that party until now.
I find it unbelievable that we should be debating an amendment of this nature which runs counter to everything the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said when he was Minister of the Environment and what his colleagues have said until now in support of sustainable development. There is no federal plot, I reassure the member for Laurentides. There is no fear to be had for jurisdiction because Canadians know very well that the environment does not know boundaries.
Perhaps the member for Laurentides forgets there would not be any clean up of substance of the St. Lawrence River were it not for the federal government, were it not for the intervention in the Great Lakes of the federal government in co-operation with Washington. We know very well the source of pollution in the St. Lawrence River. It emanates and originates from activities on both sides of the border well upstream. Therefore the role of the federal government in cleaning up the St. Lawrence River is of paramount importance.
The geopolitical law of gravity of water whereby rivers have to flow in a certain direction has escaped the attention of the member for Laurentides. She is more preoccupied with the federal presence than with the health of the people in Montreal and downstream. This is the obsession of the member for Laurentides when analysing and considering bills of an environmental nature.
The member for Laurentides is worried about the waste of two levels. If we do not have a federal level concerned with international relations, who will do it? We will have a Canada for the next thousand years and therefore we need a federal presence in implementing this type of legislation. Whether or not the member for Laurentides likes it, that is the political reality of today, tomorrow, the day after and for many generations to come, as the vote proved on October 30.
Turning to the Reform Party members, they seem to be engaging in a very fashionable game in the House. Unfortunately they are copying the member for Laurentides. They like to attack the minister. They find this is the greatest sport since the invention of soccer. We have news for them. The minister is the best we ever had considering the work she has done under most difficult political and economic circumstances.
Whether or not the Reform Party likes it, the minister has managed to promote harmonization on federal-provincial relations on the environment. This minister has managed to bring about an agreement on harmonization with British Columbia. It is quite interesting that the criticism is from members from British Columbia. The minister achieved that. The minister has produced the bill dealing with a commissioner for sustainable development, keeping a red book promise. The minister has engaged the Americans in consultations on the Great Lakes for the sake of the health of Canadians who live in that basin, namely the health of Canadians whose livelihood and well-being depend on the fresh water of that fantastic system.
The minister brought in and has before the House legislation on manganese, legislation that would remove MMT from gasoline, legislation that is opposed tooth and nail by the Reform Party on behalf of the Ethyl corporation which seems to have quite an influence on its way of thinking. We have a Minister of the Environment who has the courage to bring legislation before the House that hopefully will be approved very soon.
This is not the end of the list. The minister will provide a governmental reply to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act report of the committee of the House, which is probably one of the most difficult tasks ever faced by an environment minister who has to be concerned at the same time with the environment, with health and with the economy. That is not a minor feat for any environment minister.
Members of the Reform Party cannot appreciate that fact. It is only an indication of their political naivete or their political inability to understand the complexity of issues and to appreciate the complex role faced today by the Minister of the Environment. That is not all.
The Minister of the Environment has managed to put on the table the extremely difficult issue of climate change and the necessity of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the country, probably one of the most difficult issues to handle.
It may well be it has escaped members of the Reform Party that there is a climate change issue surrounding us, one that is at least accepted and talked about by the scientific community. The Minister of the Environment has managed to put the issue on the
agenda and is right now in Edmonton discussing the matter with her provincial colleagues.
The Minister of the Environment has put on the agenda the question of the protection of endangered species, a matter which to my greatest disappointment does not have the support of the Reform Party. As recently as this morning the Reform Party opposed proposed legislation not by the minister but by a backbencher.
