Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of the Environment is tabling the OECD's report on Canada's environmental performance.
This report also recognizes the efforts made by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which proved itself to be a useful instrument in several respects. The report highlights the environmental strengths and weaknesses of the federal and provincial governments, which made sustainable development a central theoretical concept but with few concrete applications.
The minister states that, contrary to what the report says, her government was able to translate the concept of sustainable development into a reality. To prove her assertion, she used the example of Bill C-83, which creates the position of commissioner of the environment.
I simply want to point out to her that creating the position of commissioner of the environment is no guarantee of sustainable development for the federal government, let alone for Canadian and Quebec society. On October 3, the auditor general admitted before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that he would have no control over the scope of departmental action plans. The departments themselves will be responsible for setting objectives, which cannot be questioned by anyone. In simple terms, nothing can prevent a minister from setting meaningless or superficial objectives.
More importantly, the auditor general questioned the departments' ability and willingness to find ways to assess the effectiveness of their action plans. On this subject, he said, and I quote: "In an era of downsizing and restructuring, I fear that the challenge will not be taken up. In our experience, in order to take positive action, departments need leadership, support and direction", something that is obviously lacking.
How can the minister come here to brag, when she knows full well that her government was unable to force her colleagues to develop meaningful action plans that could set an example for the private sector?
At report stage and third reading of Bill C-83, I will be pleased to analyze more thoroughly the amendments put forward by the committee, which open the door once again to federal meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The minister admitted today that there is a real need for environmental legislation to be vigorously enforced. I fully agree with her. In this regard, she should be reminded again that Canada is still acting illegally by exporting toxic waste to the third world and that her officials simply cannot afford to put an end to this practice.
The minister is quite right. It is not enough to sign international arrangements such as the Basel convention; we must also enforce them. In that sense, instead of interfering in areas that are no concern of hers, as she keeps doing, the minister should ensure that those acts which are clearly under her responsibility are properly enforced.
Moreover, the minister should also be reminded that, since her government came to office, the number of proceedings under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has clearly dropped compared to previous years.
Similarly, the minister mentioned the CEPA regulations. The report in which the standing committee criticized the fact that there are hardly any regulations respecting the CEPA must have escaped the minister's attention.
The minister also announced that the government's response to the standing committee's report on the CEPA would follow shortly. The minister might be tempted to table a bill reflecting the centralizing designs of the Liberal members of the committee, but I would caution her against it.
In the last referendum, the people of Quebec have clearly indicated that they will no longer tolerate the federal government's highhanded and centralizing approach. The Bloc Quebecois and myself are anxious to see if the minister got the message and acted on it.
I wish to stress the fact that this government's attitude since coming to office and the episode of the Environmental Assessment Act, which raised an outcry, have left a bad taste in the mouth of provincial governments. Co-operation between the various levels of government must not be taken for granted, and the minister has already gone beyond the limit of what can be tolerated in many respects.
As far as air pollution is concerned, it is obvious that the minister is walking on eggs. According to the OECD, Canada's performance is far from enviable. While, clearly, some provinces have simply
not taken their responsibilities, the minister can hardly brag about her own performance.
The minister's proposal at the recent summit in Berlin to literally deliver permits to pollute, as well as her bill on MMT, which could result in a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, are evidence of her poor performance.
I also note that Bill S-7, which seeks to introduce the use of more environment friendly fuels for the federal fleet of vehicles, is not an initiative of this government, but of Senator Colin Kenney.
Finally, I want to point out that the OECD report presented to us today concerns the provincial governments just as much, if not more. Indeed, in its report, the OECD recognizes that the provinces assume most of the responsibilities related to management of the environment. Canada still has a long way to go before it can claim to be a leader in environmental issues.
The OECD's criticisms primarily concern provincial governments. It is up to them to take the initiative and to reduce pollution, improve management of our natural resources, and improve integration of the economy and the environment.
I also think that it would be in the best interests of the provinces to take a direct part in signing international agreements. That way, they would have no excuse for not reaching objectives they themselves have set.