Mr. Speaker, in this second part of my speech, I would like to draw members' attention to the fact that Bill C-32 is not part of a decentralizing approach.
It renews the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has been so vigorously opposed by the various governments of Quebec.
In the last parliament, the Liberal government attempted to get the previous version of this bill passed, but gave up the attempt in light of the huge outcry, which could have jeopardized the upcoming elections.
Bill C-74 therefore died on the Order Paper last session, but CEPA calls for a five-year review and that deadline is already past, so the government is at it again, introducing a bill that maintains the national vision, which still does not sit well with the members of the National Assembly.
What is the purpose of this bill? With it, the prevention of pollution becomes a national objective.
The government wants to amend Canada's legislation on the environment by changing certain technicalities while maintaining the essence of a centralizing vision of environmental protection.
The legislation introduces provisions to implement pollution prevention, new procedures for the investigation and assessment of substances and new requirements with respect to substances that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have determined to be toxic.
There is a broad range of such substances. Investigators will be given new powers, for example, and there will be new regulatory measures to deal with offences. Barely a few weeks after the sensational statement by senior officials of the Department of the Environment, who wondered openly whether their department could still monitor offending businesses as cuts had been so draconian, we may well ask ourselves what purpose is served exactly by tightening offence regulations if they cannot be enforced.
We are in favour of including the Native peoples in the environmental assessment process. We wonder, however, about the double standard in the degree of openness toward the Native peoples and Quebec. Native representation on a national advisory committee, as with the provinces and the territories, in fact diminishes the power of Quebec, which like the Native peoples wants to deal with the rest of Canada nation to nation.
What powers will the renewed CEPA delegate to Quebec and the other provinces in Canada? Although in theory Bill C-32 recognizes that responsibility for the environment is shared between the federal government and the provinces, in practice it delegates no powers to them, and this runs counter to real environmental harmonization between the various levels of government.
Bill C-32 unfortunately aims at strengthening the federal government's preponderance in the field of environmental protection. This centralization runs counter to the clearly expressed wish of the National Assembly to participate fully in the environmental assessment of any project on its territory. The bill is also in flagrant contradiction with the spirit of the harmonization process launched between the federal government and the provinces.
This is why the Government of Quebec has pulled out of negotiations, and is looking further into this promising process.
The bill thus opens the door to duplication of federal and provincial powers. The federal government is justifying its interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction by invoking the recent supreme court decision with respect to Hydro-Québec. This case has always been contested by Quebec.
All the courts that ruled on it, including Quebec's highest court, the Court of Appeal, declared the federal government's order invalid. Only the supreme court, with its unitary vision of Canada, overturned the Quebec court rulings.
Bill C-32 also contains a number of new features. For instance, the government wants to replace the existing federal-provincial CEPA committee with a new national advisory committee. This committee would consist of one representative each from Environment Canada and Health Canada, one representative from each province and territory, and up to six aboriginal representatives.
This committee will advise the two federal ministers on the drafting of regulations, the management of toxic substances, and other matters of mutual interest. The provinces will advise the federal minister through a national advisory committee. The bill contains provisions for the signing of co-operation agreements covering activities such as inspections, investigations and the collection of monitoring data.
The bill also includes provisions relating specifically to aboriginal governments. They will have the same rights and responsibilities as provincial and territorial governments, including the right to conclude administrative and work-sharing agreements and equivalent provision agreements with the federal government.
In addition, they must be consulted with respect to all environmental matters affecting their territories. Up to six representatives will sit on the national advisory committee. Again, it is surprising to see that Quebec does not get such recognition of its specificity and its culture.
The new act also provides for increased public participation and for better protection for those who report CEPA violations. Individuals will be allowed to play a role in the decision making process, by submitting to the Minister of the Environment comments or notices of opposition following certain decisions, and by asking the minister to investigate alleged violations of the act.
The bill also provides that individuals' identity may not be disclosed, and it protects employees who report violations under the federal legislation. It will also allow individuals to bring civil action to protect the environment when the government is not enforcing the law.
As for public information, such information will no longer be limited to the data found in the Canada Gazette . The act will create a new public registry that will include all environmental information published under the CEPA, including decisions and regulations. This registry will complete the 1993 National Pollutant Release Inventory.
As regards pollution prevention, this issue will become a national objective. The minister will have the authority to require a pollution prevention plan in respect of substances deemed toxic under the CEPA. A tribunal will also be authorized to demand a pollution prevention plan, an environmental emergency plan, or to rule that research must be done on the use and the elimination of the substances involved in the violation.
The new act creates a national information centre on pollution prevention to help the industry share the knowledge and technologies that relate to pollution prevention activities. The new CEPA also provides for the establishment of a reward program to recognize the voluntary efforts made by the industry to prevent pollution.
As for the protection of water, the bill seeks to protect marine environment against land and atmospheric pollution sources. It also limits what can be disposed of in the sea to a list of non-hazardous materials, and will require those desiring to carry out such a disposal to prove that this is the best solution and that reuse or recycling is not possible.
The federal government feels that this bill will enable it to work, with the United States in particular, to prevent or restrict cross-border marine pollution.
Bill C-32 will enhance the EPA's authority as far as fuel and fuel additives are concerned. Imported fuels, as well as those crossing Canada's provincial and territorial boundaries, must meet certain requirements. The bill will confer the ability to establish a national fuel mark to indicate compliance with environmental standards for fuel.
Where international atmospheric pollution is concerned, the government wants to do onto others as they do onto it. When a state has not allowed Canada rights similar to those Canada has allowed, the federal minister's will have the option to take action in cases of international atmospheric pollution.
As for protection of the air, Bill C-32 calls for a national emissions mark for equipment meeting its standards. It incorporates the power to limit engine emissions. These provisions apply to motor vehicles in general, which include pleasure craft, construction equipment, farm machinery, snowblowers and lawn mowers.
The bill also includes enhanced federal power over cross-border traffic involving hazardous and non-hazardous waste, domestic garbage in particular.
We have touched on some of the aspects of this bill. We cannot explain why the bill clashes with the harmonization the government claims to have as a priority.
As we recall, Quebec refused to sign the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment agreement this past January 29.
When the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment met at that time, Quebec Environment Minister Paul Bégin refused to subscribe to that agreement, as long as the conditions called for by Quebec are not met by the federal government.
These conditions include recognizing that Quebec has primary jurisdiction in certain areas, under the constitution, a firm commitment on the part of the federal government to amend federal legislation accordingly, and finally, the signature by Quebec and the federal government of a bilateral agreement on environmental assessment.
Moreover, Minister Bégin stressed that the federal government's plans to revise the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, giving the federal government increased powers, contravened the spirit and goals of the environmental harmonization accord negotiations, especially with regard to preventing overlap and intergovernmental conflicts.
Minister Bégin's position underscored our own, as expressed in the Bloc Quebecois' dissenting opinion made public in December 1997. This step followed the one taken on November 20, 1996. The Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment had then tentatively agreed to the Canada-wide environmental harmonization accord as well as two subagreements on inspections and standards. The subagreement on environmental assessment was negotiated during the winter of 1997.
It was aimed at improving the protection of the environment in order to contribute to sustainable development, while respecting each government's fields of jurisdiction in a more efficient manner. It contained general principles to be implemented through subagreements.
The Bloc Quebecois has always supported harmonization between the federal government and the provinces if it eliminates overlap and administrative and legislative duplication between both levels of government.
So, we are in favour of environmental harmonization as long as it is not used by the federal government to hide its interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction or, conversely, to dump programs on the provinces without the appropriate funding.
It is essential that harmonization recognize the exclusive or primary jurisdiction of the provinces in the areas entrusted to them by the Constitution. The spirit of harmonization must be reflected in the changes the federal government is making to existing legislation.
Lastly, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that only the Quebec environmental assessment process must prevail in the province of Quebec. The harmonization sought by the federal government must be reflected in its legislative agenda. However, we think that Bill C-32 does not take into consideration the legislative harmonization process envisioned by the federal government and the provinces and is simply another example of federal interference in a provincial area of jurisdiction.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that this new piece of legislation goes against the past positions taken by Quebec and against the spirit of the federal-provincial harmonization initiative.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks it is unfortunate that the federal government refuses to put into law its good intentions in terms of environmental harmonization and prefers to hide behind a Supreme Court ruling that it can use as an argument for centralization.
In conclusion, the bill confirms that, with the latest Supreme Court ruling on environmental matters, the federal government is trying to broaden its powers in this area. Although the federal and provincial governments share responsibility for the environment under the Constitution, the Liberal government clearly wants to subordinate the role of the provinces to that of the central government.
The emphasis on pollution prevention as a method of priority intervention with the power to require pollution prevention plans, which are mandatory for substances included in the list of priority toxic substances, involves the development of a direct partnership between the federal government and industrial sectors that are already partly covered under Quebec programs, such as the industrial waste reduction program that has been implemented in the pulp and paper industry.
The measures contained in Bill C-32 will allow the federal government to establish national priorities for intervention. Therefore, the provinces will have no choice but to adopt federal regulations, otherwise they will be forced to see the federal government serve the same clientele.
The legislative and regulatory powers that the federal government is giving itself are very important, and while the Liberal government is constantly talking about its willingness to work in partnership with the provinces, it nevertheless institutionalizes its powers in order to play a paternalistic role towards the provinces. That is what the Bloc Quebecois deplores.
In conclusion, in light of what I just said, we in the Bloc Quebecois are against the principle of this bill at the second reading stage.