Debates of April 24th, 1998

Business Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary 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 five petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary 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 the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.

If the House gives its consent, I move that the report be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of identical petitions bearing a total of 1,236 signatures from residents of west central Saskatchewan.

These people in rural Saskatchewan are very concerned about the imminent threat to their railroads which are in the process of piecemeal abandonment by Canadian National railway. They are at this time attempting to negotiate with the railroad to have piecemeal abandonment stopped and wish to buy all the track in the area, some 300 miles of track, from the railroad.

The petitioners ask parliament that CN be required to abide by the spirit of the law and make available for purchase the branch line in its entirety.

Second, they want parliament to review the Canada Transportation Act to ensure that railways cannot obstruct the creation of short line railways on branch lines that they intend to discontinue.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present another in a series of petitions on behalf of the 18,000 Canadians who suffer from end stage kidney disease.

These over 300 petitioners work in places like Cogeco, the GM truck plant, the medical centre, Beaver Lumber and various branches of the CIBC in Peterborough.

The petitioners support the development of a bioartificial kidney in Canada. They recognize that kidney dialysis and transplantation are useful treatments for many people, but they believe that dialysis service is inadequate across the country and they call on parliament to work and support the bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis and transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 50 signatures from my constituents in Courtenay, B.C. and Comox, B.C.

The petitioners are asking parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the firearms bill, and to direct the funds that are being used on the licensing of responsible gun owners into more cost effective programs to reduce violent crime by improving public safety through crime prevention programs, more police on the streets, more anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for fighting organized crime and street gangs.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 35 people from my riding on the multilateral agreement on investment. These signatures indicate that they are very concerned with the MAI and they are concerned with the impact on the environment, employment, social programs, health care and culture.

The petitioners are asking that there be public hearings before any of this goes on further.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by some 480 citizens calling on parliament to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an adult from 14 to 16.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table multiple petitions that I continue to receive with respect to the opposition from hundreds of people of Cape Breton Island in the province of Nova Scotia with respect to the changes to the Canada pension plan.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by members of my constituency in the Regina area asking that parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention that will set a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I address my comments to the parliamentary secretary. I would like to draw his attention to my production of papers motion P-8 which has been on the order paper for five months.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has a problem. Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers are dealt with on Wednesdays and his intervention in respect of that on Wednesday would be entirely inappropriate.

If the member is seeking to raise something about the written questions, I would be glad to hear his point of order. If it is on Motion for the Production of Papers, I respectfully suggest he do that on Wednesday when those come up. They are not up for discussion today.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will raise that on Wednesday.

However, my Questions Nos. 78 and 79 are beyond the requested 45 day reporting window and I have yet to receive a response. I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary when I can expect a response.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member if there is this delay. I have noted Questions Nos. 78 and 79 and I will do my very best to find out where they are. Even though it may be out of order, I will look into P-8.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am simply trying to save the time of the House. I think it would be appropriate to raise this matter on that day and I hope the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt understands the reason for the ruling.

Is it agreed that all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resume consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1998

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

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.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

On behalf of my colleague, the member for Churchill River, my constituents of Sackville—Eastern Shore and the New Democratic Party, we are opposed to Bill C-32. The New Democratic Party is not opposed to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are opposed to Bill C-32 which continues the Liberal policy of devolution and the removal of federal responsibilities for environmental protection.

Bill C-32 is a reintroduction of Bill C-74 which died with the election call last year. I will not speak today on it section by section, clause by clause, point by point. The legislation spans 200 plus pages and contains 356 clauses. I wish to address the reasons for and the basic principles behind the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, also known as CEPA.

CEPA was developed in the mid-1980s when there was growing concern about the presence of toxic substances in the environment and the adverse impacts on the environment from a variety of pollution sources and industries contributing thereto.

This consciousness was not an oversight revelation that something was suddenly wrong with the environment. The move toward and calls for improved environmental protection came from a heightened awareness that man can damage the environment, that man can poison the air we breathe, that man can contaminate the waters we drink and that man can destroy the soil we walk upon.

A key turning point was the publication of a book written by a very brave woman ahead of the times, a book of revelations and thoughts so contrary to the industrial complex and the misguided beliefs that the earth is an endless supply house for our personal use and pillage.

The book provoked controversy. The very idea that someone could espouse such views was considered an outlandish travesty. The book was Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. I urge my colleagues to read it as we embark upon the review and restructuring of CEPA. It paints the picture I believe we are revisiting in the current Bill C-32.

Environmental protection is a requirement. Environmental protection is not an option. The Brundtland statement on sustainable development is not words. It is a practice few countries embrace by deed or implement by actions. It is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The founding principles for sustainable development can include some compromise adaptation for different regions or socioeconomic concerns. However there are lines we cannot cross if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past, the environmental degradation we must acknowledge if we are to move forward as a society and protect the environment for future generations.

Bill C-32 states “the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development”. The environment and human health cannot be considered as separate entities. They are tied together as one. A healthy environment provides healthy living. Rachel Carson identified the link in the basic process through language easily understood by individuals.

Several events contributed to the original CEPA: beyond Silent Spring , the travesty at Love Canal, the accident at Bhopal, the poisoned Beluga whales washing ashore along the St. Lawrence, the acid rain carried between countries and the near loss of North America's Great Lakes ecosystem.

The original CEPA provided the first steps toward recovery, a check and balance between dangerous environmental practices and sustainable policies.

Why do we need the legislation? We were being poisoned. Our children's future was being compromised. Legislation to ensure the protection of the environment which supports us as a species was required. The polluters polluted; the victims suffered and died. By victims we cannot consider man as the sole reason for action. All species suffered: the wildlife, the flora and the fauna.

The original CEPA provided an ability to act to protect the environment, to levy fines, to expose polluters and to support sustainable development beyond the generation.

Bill C-32 has strayed from the original principles to protect and to provide recourse. As science and technology evolved in the past decade, the ability and capacity for corporations and people to act responsibly toward the environment and to demonstrate environmental stewardship also evolved.

The industrial complex has discovered that clean operations equal efficiency and increased profits. The majority of former polluters practise environmental stewardship. This is a fact. It is recognized internationally that environmental protection and sustainable development can flourish together.

Going green does not cost jobs or decrease productivity, a principle the New Democratic Party has stated time and again in the House and across the country. The original CEPA followed a command and control regulatory framework to be reviewed for its adequacy every five years. A decade has passed and we are revisiting our responsibility as a federal government and as members representing Canadians from all regions and provinces.

Bill C-32 is straying from that original regulatory structure and visiting the very policy that required CEPA in the 1980s: voluntary measures and limited federal intervention.

The Liberal government has demonstrated a consistent approach to environmental policy: ignore until an issue climate change and global warming; finances first before the environment or, as my colleagues have described, Environment Canada decimated by resource and staff cuts; economic concerns first and environmental consideration second, an example is Cheviot mine in Alberta; unit politicking and devolution to the provinces, the harmonization accord; international embarrassment for failed targets, Rio and in a few years Kyoto; and global competitiveness as a moral marker.

The Liberal government has demonstrated time and time again that the environment is not important. “Let the provinces handle the problem, similar to what they are doing with hepatitis C. We can wash our hands clean of the responsibility. The next Plastimet will be someone else's travesty. The Swan Hills plant will continue to spew poisons. The Sydney tar ponds, the United States abandoned military sites, the Lachine canal, northern contamination through the Arctic and poisons in mothers' milk, not our problems”.

What is wrong with this Liberal picture? It is not protection by design and legislation: sign an accord, cry co-operation and put the Canadian public at the mercy of economics and global competitive policy.

It took a year for the House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to complete the last review of CEPA. Its report entitled “It's About our Health: Pollution Prevention” echoes Ms. Carson's Silent Spring . This massive report contained 141 recommendations to improve Bill C-32's predecessor, Bill C-74.

The Liberals refused the majority of the recommendations and the majority of the 400 responses received by the government during the public review. They ignored the consensus and followed a detrimental path: devolution, voluntary programs and voluntary participation. In most cases this practice works and the New Democratic Party recognizes this fact. There are however bad apples.

The rules and regulations are necessary to ensure that when damage occurs, when environmental degradation occurs, when protection is required, there is a mechanism for redress, a legal course of action.

We do not believe that Canada's environment requires a command and control regulatory framework as the sole parameter or measure of environmental protection. There should be co-operative measures including sharing of responsibilities between provinces and territorial governments, indeed at all government levels, to ensure environmental protection of the highest possible standard.

On a more personal note, my family and I firmly believe that the bill does nothing to protect my children's future or my children's children's future. I encourage the government to revisit Bill C-32 and to listen to the voices out there to improve these regulations.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chris Axworthy)]

The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my sincere congratulations on fulfilling your role as Speaker this afternoon. I must say decorum and conduct in the House are almost unprecedented.

It is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a most comprehensive piece of legislation with respect to environmental management and development.

It is an extremely complex piece of legislation. It is long. It is over 200 pages and covers a wide variety of subjects from toxic substance and waste management to vehicle emissions and air and water pollution. It has been called everything from an environmental war measures act to a piece of legislation so vast and sweeping that it defies categorization.

I do not wish at this point to go into any great detail on any specific clause. That will be our role in committee. There are a couple of areas of concern to me. First is the issue of pollution prevention. The government has stated that pollution prevention is the cornerstone of the bill. It calls it a national goal, which is fine for me because I believe it is a very laudable intention.

However I am concerned about the consequences of this commitment. Has the government thought it out? The bill gives the minister the authority to require any person or business to develop and submit a pollution prevention plan. How much will it cost? How detailed will it have to be? Will it be the same for small business as for big industry?

What about time? The bill states that the government can tell a business how much time it has to draw up and implement a plan. Will there be any guarantee that business will be given enough time to study the problem and consult the people who will help draw up the plan, or will everything be left merely to the discretion of the minister?

I make reference to a clause found in paragraph 6. It states essentially that lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental damage. Any kind of environmental legislation must be based upon science. At the end of the day it is imperative that we take a very prudent approach to our sustainable management if there is any thought that any kind of environmental initiative or toxin could potentially harm any citizen's health or the environment of the country. The government should be applauded for this very prudent initiative.

This is a different era in terms of political parties in Canada. We can look at the number of parties we have on this side of the House. We talk about the Progressive Conservative Party. We talk about the Reform Party. I make clear that I respect individuals who chose to vote Reform in past years for different reasons. In some situations it was a way to express a desire for better representation for the western provinces. We applaud that.

More often than not, the media and the electorate are looking at areas that actually distinguish political parties. One such area is a prudent approach to science. We believe categorically in the science of climate change. The Reform Party has chosen to ignore the science of climate change because it believes there is some doubt. The primary scientific body on climate change set up by the United Nations said there was a discernible human influence on climate change. This is a case in point for people looking for areas to distinguish the two parties. Ours is a prudent approach to the environment.

My second area of concern is about the enforcement clauses contained in the bill. These are found in part 10 which contains almost 100 clauses of the 356 clauses in the legislation. They cover areas like inspection, search, detention, forfeiture, offences and punishment. In light of the preponderance of enforcement clauses in the bill, almost one in three, I am surprised no mention is made in the preamble of the government's position on the matter of enforcement. To me 100 clauses says that we are determined to do something.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes the bill is important. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada introduced the Environmental Protection Act in 1988. It was brought forward by the Hon. Jean J. Charest.

We think that protection of the environment is important, but recent reports of the auditor general and the environment commissioner have raised doubts about this. Not only do they take issue with this government's ability to manage the environment properly but, more fundamentally, they seriously question its very commitment to protect Canada's environment and its ability to enforce environmental legislation.

In January of this year the federal, provincial and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec, signed an environmental harmonization accord. This accord, like much of what this government attempts to do in the environment field, has been the target of much criticism. People are asking why it contains no provision guaranteeing environmental enforcement. They are upset that the federal government is offloading its responsibilities to the provinces, particularly in the areas of environmental inspection, assessment and standard setting.

One of the other criticisms they have on the harmonization accord is the fact that the government actually chose to do inspections of environmental regulations during the first subagreements with the provinces, but not enforcement. So inspections can be done, but violations cannot be enforced. Perhaps the government understands this. However, the environmental community and common sense Canadians understand that enforcement and inspection should have been part of the first set of subagreements.

The government claims that it is not downloading its responsibilities to the provinces. It is simply harmonizing environmental programs and policies. It is making sure if one level of government is fulfilling a task competently that another level will not come in and begin doing the same job. That is the intention of harmonization and that would be a good thing. However, according to the information on the accord I obtained from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's website, it is clear the government is devolving power to the provinces.

Looking at the objectives of the accord, they include using what the government calls a co-operative approach. Under the principles of the accord we see that decisions pursuant to the accord will be consensus based. In the part entitled “Subagreements”, No. 8 states specifically that in areas where governments have been unable to reach a consensus on a Canada-wide approach, each government is free to act within its existing authority and will advise the other governments accordingly.

Co-operative approach and consensus approach are words that mean only one thing. The federal government is getting out of the environment business. It is abandoning its role as a setter and a guarantor of national standards.

The government's haste to relinquish power and responsibility to the provinces over environmental matters is going to have a direct consequence on environmental enforcement. This much is certain. Regional disparities or the so-called patchwork effect are going to become the rule rather than the exception. The environment is a shared jurisdiction and we know that shared jurisdictions lead to unequal application of laws and regulations.

I would refer to a question that I asked on March 19 in the House during question period with respect to this very issue. I believe it would be very important for us to revisit the question at this time. Essentially, I pointed out to the minister that when it comes to enforcement in the province of New Brunswick there is only one enforcement officer for a province of 750,000 persons. There is only one enforcement officer for an economy that is resource based, with industries such as pulp and paper and other heavy industry. I believe it would be more prudent to have better investigations.

It is not just New Brunswick. In the province of Ontario one of the minister's officials stated in committee on February 26 that if there are not the resources for a CEPA regulation that needs to be investigated, then it basically sits in a file until an investigator is freed up. If an investigator is not freed up over a period of a year or two years, then a file is simply closed. That is shameful. Canadians want to know how many environmental regulations which are violated end up in a file that simply gets closed.

The environment is a shared jurisdiction. It is known that shared jurisdictions lead to the unequal application of laws or regulations. This is especially true when there are no national benchmarks and no single points of authority.

In this country each province and territory has its own political culture, its own employment needs and its own set of relationships with business and industry. Each applies and enforces laws and regulations according to their needs. Lacking in overall authority, namely the federal government, it is clear that the chances of CEPA being enforced with any rigour or consistency are remote. They get even more remote when we consider how little money and resources are being allotted to enforcement.

With 100 clauses the government is making a major commitment to enforcing CEPA. Yet as the draft report of the environment committee points out, at the same time the government is failing to provide the department most responsible for enforcement the necessary wherewithal to accomplish its task.

When this government came to office, Environment Canada's budget was approximately $750 million and it employed nearly 6,000 persons. Today the department's budget has been reduced to a touch over $500 million and the number of employees has shrunk to a little more than 4,000; a 33% cut on environmental management. That is the record of this government.

Obviously these reductions have not been without consequences on the department's ability to enforce CEPA properly. Last summer, in fact, things got so bad that the director of the department's enforcement branch admitted publicly that it was considering asking the RCMP to help track polluters. The Mounties would be going after polluters.

Just last week we learned that this same branch plans to cut more staff, meaning that Environment Canada will be dedicating the grand total of approximately 1% of its staff to enforcement. This is a bizarre situation.

If we really think of it, one in three or 33% of this bill's clauses deals with enforcement. Yet out of a total budget of $500 million, a mere $16 million is allocated to enforcement. These are hardly the types of figures a government claiming to be committed to protecting the environment and enforcing CEPA's rules can accept. If it can, Environment Canada cannot realistically be expected to play anything but a minor role in the enforcement of environmental regulations in this country from now on. This means that by default the task in enforcing CEPA will fall to the provinces.

These statistics are very sobering; indeed, alarming. We are going to ask the provinces to actually carry the enforcement ball even more so. Let us look at what the provinces are doing these days with respect to environmental management.

In New Brunswick annual spending on enforcement, planning and so forth has dropped from $17 million in 1991-92 to a mere $12 million today. In Newfoundland the environmental department has had to absorb a 60% cut in its budget since 1994-95.

These statistics are indeed sobering. They also point out that the environment is not a priority of this government any more. It does not take a nuclear physicist to judge the impact that these continued and sustained cuts to environmental budgets are having on the ability and the will of different environmental departments to enforce regulations. Governments simply cannot continue cutting budgets and staff while maintaining, in some cases increasing, the mandate of their environment departments.

I would like to point one thing out. I am what I consider to be a devout fiscal conservative. I think it is very important for governments to live within their means. We need to ensure that we have very strong debt reduction targets so that there is an actual investment in our future and we do not continue to mortgage the future of younger generations.

High debt levels actually affect our country's competitiveness to be able to compete. Why? It is because taxes actually impede our ability to compete, but we can never lower taxes unless we eliminate the pressures that cause high taxes and those pressures are spending.

What we need to do is pay down our debt so we actually pay less money in interest charges on a year to year basis. Then it comes to establishing our priorities. A government that has too many priorities, by definition, does not have any.

What I am pointing out is that the government should be investing in its people and its future. We should allocate our moneys where the citizens of this country want them, in the health care system and in the education system. As well, Canadians want to be assured of a healthy, sound environment in which to live.

My last concern about this bill relates to the proposal to allow anyone over 18 to provoke an investigation of any person or business felt to be contravening the act. This particular clause makes me very uneasy. I am in favour of measures to increase public participation in the environmental process, but we are opening the door to malicious and vexatious investigations by individuals and groups with personal grudges or corporate agendas.

Overall, I am somewhat disappointed with the scope of this bill. This is particularly so in light of the great expectations engendered by the Liberals over the environment issue. In fact, Great Expectations could well be the title of the Liberal environmental policy since 1993.

Members will recall that one-eighth of the first red book was devoted to the environment, thanks to the efforts of one of its authors, the present finance minister, who was then the opposition environment critic. The red book was not the only promise. Since coming to government one environment minister after another has made promise upon promise to do great things for the environment. That is why this bill is so disappointing. It simply does not live up to its billing. It fails to meet the hopes raised through years of unbridled rhetoric.

The question that inevitably comes to mind is: Why, after so much debate and so many promises, has this bill fallen so short of the mark? The first and most obvious reason is that the Liberal Party has lost interest in managing the environment. In its rush to adopt as many of the previous government's policies and positions as it could, there is no longer any room on the policy plate for the environment.

The second reason is that the former environment critic, the current finance minister, has other things on his mind these days than the protection of the environment.

After this government was hit hard by its pre-Kyoto “make it up as we go strategy”, we would have thought that one of the principal actions of the government in the new year, given the minister's comments in January that the cornerstone of its post-Kyoto strategy was rewarding industry for early action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, would have been to put an initiative in the budget for tax incentives for research and development on energy efficiency, for the use of renewable energy sources and for the development of renewable energy sources.

I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that the Progressive Conservative Party will support Bill C-32 in its current form. We will have to look at in terms of what comes out of committee. It is a more workable bill than Bill C-74 was. It is an extension of what the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was initially set out to be. It is our cornerstone bill of legislation with respect to the environment. It is a bill that the current member for Sherbrooke brought in when he was environment minister between 1990 and 1993.

That gentleman had a very successful record in managing the environment. This House will actually miss his leadership and his commitment to the environment, as well as his commitment to Canadians as he takes on other challenges for our country.

In the time remaining I would like to point out that this government must be challenged over the coming days and weeks to ensure that the environment becomes a priority again.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my Conservative colleague's presentation. I know from often discussing environmental issues with him that we often share concerns in this respect. We sit on the same parliamentary committee and we often attend the same international conferences, including the one in Kyoto, to reduce greenhouse gases.

We also agree on the federal government's inability to resolve the problem. I think that we can agree on that.

What we never agree on—“but that is how our system works—” is which level of government should be responsible for environmental issues. Is it a centralized or central government? Is it the responsibility of the federal government or the provinces? Does the Government of Quebec have jurisdiction?

The harmonization process and the agreement were quite clear. There was a principle which stated that every effort would be made to eliminate duplication and overlap. Today, the government brings in Bill C-32. Every aspect of this bill is set in a national context or spirit.

I have a simple question for my colleague from the Conservative Party. Does he agree that the national principle underlying Bill C-32 is contrary to the stated principles of harmonization?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows there will be a long answer, but my short answer to the question generally is no.

Canadians believe that the management of the environment is a shared jurisdiction. All levels of government, provincial, federal and I may also add municipal, have a role to play with respect to environmental management.

That said, it is imperative that our federal and provincial governments work in a more co-operative manner so we can manage and utilize our resources to ensure that whichever level of government is best served to deliver a certain function with respect to environmental management, that level of government should do it. At the end of the day, I believe the provinces should deliver a number of services which the federal government does today.

The population of Canada wants to know that the federal government is the principal governmental body that provides leadership for this country.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I was the official opposition environment critic in the last parliament, I will make a few comments.

In the last parliament, we studied Bill C-74 for almost a year and a half. The Bloc Quebecois had tabled a minority report during that study and our concerns remain the same. They are still related to the fact that, in the bill, the federal government is again interfering in provincial jurisdiction.

Here are my concerns: are there not some risks, in this bill, of never ending legal challenges between the federal and provincial governments, once again? If we look at the CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, that was passed during the last parliament, and if we look at what is happening at this time, we realize that legal challenges have already been launched, involving Quebec and the federal government, again because the federal government is interfering in provincial jurisdiction.

In Quebec, we have the BAPE, which does some extraordinary work with environmental assessments. If the federal government comes and interferes in assessments that have already been done, and says it is not satisfied with our assessments, this will delay some projects, business projects, big projects, major projects that will not be undertaken because for five, six or seven years, money will be spent going around in circles because of dry legal challenges.

That is my concern. Is the federal government not again interfering in a provincial jurisdiction? Having been involved for more than three years, I think the environment is better managed close to the people than at a higher level.

If we look at the cuts in the federal environment department, how are they going to properly enforce an act when, because of the huge cuts, they do not know who will enforce it? How will they succeed in doing this? Will there be an environmental police on the highways? That is impossible, because they do not have the means to do it.

Are the revision of the CEPA and the meddling in provincial jurisdiction and causing endless legal wrangling nothing more than window dressing?

I do not know whether my colleague has any comments in this regard. Clearly the environment is a priority because it involves our future. On the other hand, we must ensure, if legislation is to be properly applied, that we do not systematically block what is already happening provincially.

Let us look at the broader picture and cut in financial terms as well. If we try to come up with situations that are intolerable and unliveable we will be doing the environment no favours, in fact, quite the opposite, we will harm it. I would like to hear what my colleague in the Conservative Party has to say.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. She raises a number of very relevant points some of which I would like to touch on.

I understand that where my colleague is coming from is that the government has shown a tendency to interfere in a number of provincial jurisdictions where it is just not welcome. At the end of the day it does not make sense for the federal government to interfere in areas which are clearly within provincial jurisdiction.

A case in point is that of education. Education is something that belongs in the provincial realm. Except for maybe post-secondary education, the federal government really has no direct role in interfering with the provinces unless the provinces want to participate in a particular program. For instance if the province of Quebec wanted to do something about post-secondary education with the federal government and it was more Quebec's idea than that of the federal government, then maybe they might go ahead and do that, but education is something that belongs to the provinces.

Another case in point is Quebec's right to self-determination. Clearly Quebec's right to self-determination and the unity issue of this country is a political decision. It is not a legal decision. There is no reason for the government to privatize the political process and send this issue to the supreme court.

If the hon. member has concerns about federal interference in provincial areas, I understand where she is coming from because there are times when the federal government interferes in areas where it does not belong. That said, I fundamentally believe the environment is an area of shared jurisdiction.

The hon. member touched on a couple of points. One of the things I would like to comment on is that this is the first piece of environmental legislation of any note that the government has brought forth since being elected on October 25, 1993. Bravo. It is a good piece of legislation because we first brought it in back in 1988. The only piece of legislation the government has actually brought forth was to update a solid piece of legislation which our party first introduced in 1988.

The hon. member raised some questions and concerns with respect to enforcement of environmental regulations. There are 100 clauses in the legislation which refer to enforcement but the federal government does not allocate the resources to have enforcements in the first place. If the hon. member is concerned that it is really nice that we have this legislation but we are not going to enforce it, I think at the end of the day the federal government is required to send the resources to the provinces to ensure that the environmental regulations are actually carried out.

As to the other points the hon. member brought forth, perhaps I could catch up with her at a later time to finish this conversation to permit other questions in the House.