Debates of April 27th, 1998

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last question is not at all. The federal government is here representing the interests of all Canadians. I articulated this very clearly in this legislation, in carrying out a mandate to protect all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

With regard to air, water and our natural environment, we work in consultation and in collaboration with other levels of government, including provincial, and I believe that is the way we can most effectively protect the environment. This government is committed to continuing to do so.

I was also criticized as a representative of the government with regard to our efforts on climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases. As late as last Friday I had a very successful meeting with provincial and territorial counterparts from across the country. We discussed the very serious issue of climate change.

We all agreed we would support early action to reduce greenhouse gases but also that we would together develop a national implementation strategy so that together we can find the way to reduce greenhouse gases, to meet our target which is to achieve a reduction of gases to 6% below 1990 levels.

We want to reduce greenhouse gases to that level in the most cost effective way which means that we all must work together to find out where there is the greatest economic advantage to our achieving the reductions, recognizing this is an issue that will not only preserve, conserve and improve our environment but will represent very significant economic advantages.

With regard to the accord on harmonization I signed at the end of January with provinces and territories across Canada, with the exception of Quebec, I am still hopeful that there will come a day when Quebec will see that it is to its advantage as well to sign in with the federal government and all the other provinces and territories to understand that is the best way to protect our environment.

However, the principles and guidelines we signed into under that accord recognize the jurisdictions of all levels of government. It does not mean devolution of authority on the part of any level of government. However, the Quebec government was requesting not only in its words the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec in environmental matters, which we know is inadequate, but for the federal government to devolve its authorities to the province, and that we will not do.

We want to work in harmony with provinces and territories to protect our environment to the highest level but we each want to maintain our significant authorities to protect that environment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-32. This is an important issue, because Quebeckers must ask themselves whether the federal government is trying to apply an old formula to a new area.

It is an important issue for Quebeckers, because they went through this before, in many areas. When the federal government gets involved in an area of provincial jurisdiction, it slowly changes the province's way of doing things, through the regulatory process. In doing so, it is supported by the Supreme Court, as I will show a little further on.

Quebeckers have the right and the duty to ask themselves whether this bill will ultimately allow Quebec to assume its responsibilities, and whether it will allow for the harmonious development of its territory and its environment. But such is not the case.

The federal government had two options regarding this legislation. The first one would have been to establish a harmonized environmental approach with the provinces. The harmonization agreement mentioned earlier might have given the impression that the government was headed in that direction. Unfortunately, it is now tabling the bill while invoking the fact that there is a harmonization agreement. However, it conveniently forgets to say that Quebec is not part of that agreement, and it forgets to say why our province is not part of it. So, the federal government decided to go ahead with its legislation, even though it was not able to reach an agreement with Quebec.

We do not know what motivated such a decision by the federal government in this area, and in other areas in the past. We do not know if it is because of the undue influence of senior federal officials who want to ensure they have a future in the public service, or if it is elected people, who say in good faith, as does the Minister of the Environment, that the federal government must regulate in this area and get involved, because there are all sorts of problems and issues at stake.

The environment is a major issue, but getting involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction is not the right way for the federal government to fulfil its role.

The example of the greenhouse gases is very telling. We cannot ask the federal government to get involved in all sorts of areas, if it does not properly fulfil its responsibilities at the international level.

Contrary to what the minister might have said earlier, I did not get the impression that the working session with the ministers last week was a success. What the media reported was that Canada would have a hard time meeting its commitment and that some provinces had no chance of doing so at all.

This information was not reported by journalists. It came out in many of the statements by the ministers, including the minister from Alberta. The leadership the government was wanting to assume in this sector has amounted to lip service only up to this point.

They saved face in setting international standards and now, back home, they are wondering how they will go about it. As things were not solid to start with and the position of the Government of Canada was taken at the last minute, there is no consensus on this position.

The federal government cannot claim that the bill being debated at second reading has a strong foundation and that all governments in Canada support it, because Quebec, among others, has not signed the harmonization agreement.

We should understand the roles assigned by this bill. It refers to a national advisory committee comprising representatives of both Environment Canada and Health Canada and of each province and to the negotiation of agreements where consensus is not reached. Reference is made to two thirds in a number of decisions.

At this point, when they talk of two thirds, it means that Quebec, which has not signed the harmonization agreement and which may have other claims in certain sectors, may frequently find itself in the minority. It has, however, had significant environmental successes.

In the case of the objectives Canada may promote internationally, particularly with respect to greenhouse gases, much is due to the fact that Quebec, through its energy choices and its advantages due to hydroelectricity, is helping to make it possible to attain these objectives.

If, on the one hand, we make a positive contribution and, on the other, we lack the influence to act as we should with respect to our environment, it is obvious that Bloc members cannot approve this policy.

We consider it just as important to criticize the so-called double safety net. The federal government is arguing that, with two levels of government involved in environmental matters, the level of protection would be higher than if only one government was responsible.

We know this old recipe has never worked anywhere. What people want is to know who is responsible for environmental problems, so that they do not have to deal with two levels of government and two sets of regulations allowing polluters to slip through the net yet again.

The principle put forward by the federal government is not valid. It would have been much better to carry through to the end of the harmonization process in order to clarify roles. Before introducing this bill, the government should have made sure the accountability system was clear.

When people have to assess the actions of various governments with regard to the environment, they need to ascertain whether the government acted properly and protected the environment adequately.

If not, they need to determine why the protection was not adequate and what legislative changes are necessary, instead of getting entangled in the web of legal and regulatory fights which will be the direct result of the principle put forward by the federal government, namely the double safety net and the sharing of environmental responsibilities by both levels of government.

On January 29, 1998, Quebec refused to sign the harmonization accord. The accord is one thing, reality is another. It includes several cases of overlap which will lead to intergovernmental conflicts. This is one of the main reasons why Quebec did not sign the accord.

In the proposed accord, there was a willingness to recognize the various levels of responsibility, but Quebec was denied the place it deserves in this area. Obviously, at the time of Confederation, not much thought was given to the environment, which has become such an important issue today. It must be understood that Quebeckers want to have adequate control over this sector.

This issue is present everywhere around us. It would be irresponsible on the part of the Quebec government to allow decisions to be made at another level, especially since there would be overlap.

We think the federal government should have shown some good faith and goodwill before introducing this bill. Several pieces of legislation are slated for introduction and consideration in the near future, such as those dealing with endangered species, fisheries and environmental protection.

In view of the way the federal government has assumed its responsibilities in the past in the area of fisheries and in view of the present situation both on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast, people may be reluctant to give the federal government too much power with regard to the environment, because a parallel can certainly be drawn between those two areas.

The lack of co-ordination in managing fishery resources has yielded terrible results that have threatened the survival of entire communities. Fishing had been their livelihood for several decades. Mismanagement of our fish stocks has forced the government to close down certain fisheries, which is an important blemish on Canada's record both nationally and internationally. This example leads us to say that, before introducing a bill such as Bill C-32, before amending the Environmental Protection Act, the government should deal with other problems such as endangered species and the fisheries. These are important areas where the federal government has not necessarily shown its effectiveness.

There are other irritants in this bill. Bill C-14 on water management is a perfect example of the contradiction that exists. In the harmonization agreement, the federal government says it will respect everyone's jurisdiction. This bill has been received negatively by all environmental stakeholders in Quebec.

There have been meetings about this. It is quite obvious that drinking water is under Quebec or provincial jurisdiction. The introduction of Bill C-32 has confirmed our apprehension that the federal government will be able to justify through this another intrusion into several areas where there are environmental impacts and that are, at this time, under Quebec's jurisdiction, because the Quebec government can claim this jurisdiction, or can demonstrate that it has taken relevant steps, that this matter is being debated in Quebec and that people want a made in Quebec decision.

Through this more comprehensive piece of legislation, Quebec's responsibilities will be further eroded and reduced. We will end up with repeated regulatory and legal squabbles over which government is right or wrong. On this point, I think Quebec's concerns are justified, and we have to speak on behalf of Quebeckers.

In the pulp and paper industry, the Quebec government introduced the industrial emissions reduction program. The federal government may well feel the urge to take action in the same area. In the past, we have had to make representations. There is a paper mill in my riding. After my election, the first request made by the mill was this: Is there any possibility of eliminating duplication in forms to be filled out? Is there any possibility of avoiding having the two levels of government asking us the same thing?

Pulp and paper mills are affected by how rivers are managed. This is an issue that is linked to the environment, an area usually dealt with by the provincial governments in the past. Federal involvement in this area is not desirable.

In fact, when we say that Quebeckers are of the opinion that Bill C-32 intrudes in some of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, we are reporting not only the views of the ordinary citizens, but the views of the business community. If we want to ensure that Quebec will be able to react appropriately in the future in terms of being competitive, we cannot allow unacceptable environmental criteria to be set. We have to ensure, for example, that jurisdictional issues are settled and that our businesses do not have to abide by two sets of regulations, which is why we find the bill before the House very dangerous.

My colleague from Rosemont said earlier that the bill provides, among other things, for the possible creation of national emissions marks for fuels. This is in direct conflict with what Quebec or any other province can do in this area.

Environmental issues are very complex issues. Since this is the appropriate season, let me use as an example the migration of snow geese.

Migratory birds are covered under international law, which means that the federal government, in an area where it entitled to act on international agreements, passed an act to protect snow geese. Nowadays, the population has grown and has a huge impact on agriculture, such an impact that a compensation package had to be developed for farmers who suffer losses when the geese eat the seeds they have sown in their fields.

Under this package however, farmers are not fully compensated. The federal government, which is responsible for the migratory birds legislation, has not yet found the means whereby, through the Canadian Wildlife Service, we could ensure the controlled management of geese.

It developed a model because it wanted to ensure the snow goose population to increase. It succeeded in this regard, but now seems to have lost control over the population. It seems to be going in a direction where there is a never ending increase of that population, to the detriment of our agricultural heritage.

It would be important, in such an area, to harmonize action plans, but only after assessing the situation as a whole, and not through specific ad hoc actions that deal with the crisis on a yearly basis, but do not deal with the fundamental issue.

This is an example where, before giving the federal government the controls provided for in Bill C-21, we would want to know how it would manage the snow geese, which I give as an example, because we have some concerns about what passage of Bill C-32 could lead to.

In conclusion, I believe it is important point out that the political consequences of the passage of this bill are clear. If, for example, the Government of Quebec wanted to implement an environmental policy that would be positive and provide incentives, through tax credits, and the federal government were to adopt a punitive approach based on the Criminal Code, the Government of Quebec would have no choice but to comply with such a federal law because the supreme court, in one of its rulings—which was a very close one, five to four—has given a very wide interpretation and has given a very important national scope to the regulatory weight of the federal government on environmental issues.

This is a blatant example clearly showing that, like the leaning tower of Pisa, the supreme court always leans on the same side. In this case, a court appointed by the federal government arrived at a ruling by a very narrow margin, but however narrow the margin, this ruling gives the federal government almost total discretion and allows it to act as if it were the national government of Canada instead of the federal government. This is an important distinction.

In Canada, we have a federal government and provincial governments. But no one should lay claim to having a mandate as the national government, especially not in areas that are not under its jurisdiction. If the approach taken by a province, Quebec for instance, is very different from the course of action chosen by the federal government, we could end up with a serious lack of harmony.

This ruling allows the federal government to prohibit pollution and to regulate all pollution issues. The supreme court ruling is clear: in case of disagreement between the federal government and the provinces, the federal government will always win. That is why it is important that we, in this House, be logical and use common sense to prevent passage of this bill. It should go back to committee, or the minister should withdraw it, so that the harmonization agreement can really become a reality and that Quebec can make its arguments.

In an area like this one, which is the way of the future, this ruling shows once again how centralizing the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal government are. It seems important to me that we send a clear message saying that jurisdictions must be respected and that henceforth Quebec should have control over its own environment.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I am pleased to address the House on this very important piece of environmental legislation, Bill C-32, a bill to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly known as CEPA.

CEPA is a comprehensive environmental protection and pollution prevention statute. Since 1988 it has been the cornerstone of federal environmental and health protection legislation. One of the most crucial components of the act allows for the control of toxic substances.

Many toxic substances do not stay put once they are released into the environment. Toxic substances such as mercury and PCBs have been found in the blood of aboriginal people in communities in the high Arctic located far from industrial developments. These substances are transported to remote and otherwise pristine environments by air currents and they can have long term adverse health effects on the people and the wildlife that breathe air, drink water or consume food that contain these substances.

Canadians are very concerned about the risks toxic substances pose to their health, their children's health and the long term sustainability of their environment. Certainly the residents of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington are concerned about these issues and I know that is true for all Canadians.

Bill C-32 helps to reduce or eliminate this threat. It is important to know exactly what that is. The good work already under way to identify and manage toxic substances will continue and the bill introduces innovations to allow more efficient and effective government action in carrying out these activities.

It also incorporates in the legislation key features of the federal toxic substances management policy which sets out precautionary proactive and accountable rules for dealing with toxic substances. Bill C-32 will ensure that decisions are based on sound science and will provide a management framework for dealing with toxic substances that is preventive and precautionary. Our aim is to take all reasonable precautions to reduce or eliminate the exposure of Canadians to these toxic substances.

Bill C-32 will impose new deadlines for the development of preventative or control actions. It will require that the ministers of the environment and health propose concrete actions to prevent or control the release of substances within two years of declaring a substance to be toxic. These preventative or control actions must be finalized within the following 18 months.

The goal of virtual elimination is new to CEPA. The Government of Canada recognized in its 1995 toxic substances management policy that our traditional approach of managing the release of toxic substances into the environment throughout their life cycle is not sufficient for certain toxic substances. These substances that require stricter management actions result primarily from human activity. They persist in the environment for long periods of time and they bioaccumulate, that is, the toxins are stored in the tissues of living creatures.

Every minute quantity of these substances may build up over time to levels that cause serious long term adverse effects to the environment or to human health. Once in the environment these substances will continue to damage our health and the health of our ecosystem over many generations, often through subtle effects on the endocrine, immune, reproductive and other sensitive biological systems. Virtual elimination is necessary to protect our health and that of the environment.

Bill C-32 allows for creative approaches in controlling toxic substances. This will achieve results faster and will provide greater flexibility. A reactive and control management approach is often costly and time consuming. In some circumstances traditional regulations remain the best solution. However, they are only one of several tools which Bill C-32 places at our disposal. These tools include pollution prevention plans, voluntary initiatives and economic instruments such as tradable permits to control toxic substances.

These new tools focus on environmental results rather than on the means by which the results are achieved. They give operators the flexibility to incorporate cost effective measures that suit their needs without the direct intervention of government, as long as the required environmental protection objectives are met. The result is oftentimes a greater reduction in toxic emissions than would otherwise be achieved through traditional regulatory approaches. Examples of such programs include the accelerated reduction and elimination of toxics challenge program that was launched in 1994 and a number of voluntary initiatives such as the Canadian automotive manufacturing pollution prevention project. The recent ARET report noted that in 1996 reductions in releases amounted to 5,064 tonnes, a decrease of 27% from 1995 emission levels. Participants have reduced their emissions by almost 21,500 tonnes, a 61% overall reduction from base year levels.

Canada can learn from the actions of other countries. Bill C-32 requires the federal government to review decisions and control actions on toxic substances taken by other countries to determine if they are relevant and applicable to the Canadian situation. The government will regularly review decisions taken by provinces in Canada or by member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to ban, schedule for elimination or severely restrict toxic substances.

We have listened to the concerns of Canadians about toxic substances. This environmental legislation addresses these concerns. A strengthened CEPA along with other relevant federal legislation and our international environmental commitments provide the Government of Canada with the tools and measures needed to protect the Canadian environment and the health of Canadians.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians. It will lead us into the next millennium with vision and foresight.

I urge this House to support this legislation and to give it speedy passage in order to usher Canada into the 21st century.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that there are provisions in this bill to allow for creative measures to improve the environment. I would ask him to expand on some of those creative measures. I would also ask him where in this bill and what are the provisions for educating Canadians on environmental protection and how much emphasis his government has placed on education.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I come from a municipality and a riding where in fact we take the environment very seriously, as do all Canadians. I was thinking about how important it is for the municipalities to have a role, for a watershed, often a conservation authority, to have a role, for the provinces to have a role and for the federal government to have a role.

Certainly in terms of education that is a key component. We as legislators need to ensure that people are aware, especially our young people, of the importance of the environment and what we as Canadians can do to secure it and ensure that we pass on to the next generation the kind of environment they should have, and rightfully so.

I encourage whatever efforts we can make to ensure that all Canadians, especially our young people, know precisely the kinds of efforts we need to make to ensure that our environment remains the best in the world.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the final remark by my colleague across the way, who wishes to pass on to the next generation a country with a clean environment. But, once again, I remind him that the federal government wants to play a leadership role when it comes to the environment and says it is doing its job. The problem is that the results are very different.

Unlike Quebec, the federal government has not even managed to attain the goals it set in Rio. There is a problem somewhere. It is therefore not true that objectives are reached more easily with a central, federal and paternalistic government.

The purpose of this bill is to give the law more teeth. That is what the minister and public servants are telling us. Existing enforcement of the legislation is lagging in this regard. I think that there is difficulty enforcing and implementing this legislation, and that there is a desire to give the federal government more ammunition. I think there is a problem.

There is the example of transborder movement of hazardous waste. Although there is legislation, it has not been possible to enforce it, with the result that Montreal has now become the black market centre for hazardous waste in Canada and even in North America. So there is a problem.

My question for my colleague opposite is as follows. The issue is not the level of government, but which level of government is in the best position to respond to requirements and to resolve the actual problems. Is that not the real issue? The issue is not whether it should be the federal or the provincial government, but which is in the best position to address environmental problems. In many instances, the provinces are in the best position to do so.

It must be remembered that the provinces are forced to meet their environmental commitments in addition to shouldering responsibilities that have been transferred from the federal government to the provinces. Will my colleague opposite not admit that the provinces are in the best position to address environmental problems?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listen in amazement to members of the Bloc speak to jurisdictional issues. It seems to me that the environment is of such grave concern and of such great importance to all Canadians that there is a role for all of us to play. There is a role for provincial people, there is a role for municipal people, there is a role for conservation authorities and there is a role for the federal government, and that is a very important role.

I heard earlier the hon. member opposite talk about a lack of good faith, when in reality the federal government, in good faith, is doing the kinds of things that are required for the betterment of our environment and is doing so in a way that benefits he and I and all Canadians, no matter where they live.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of working with the committee that revised the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 1994. We spent something like 18 months listening to witnesses from all segments of society and all parts of Canada.

We travelled from one end of Canada to the other, including the Arctic regions. If today we are proposing certain underlying principles in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, this is precisely because of what we heard from many Canadians across the country.

Those underlying principles are as follows:

First there is pollution prevention, the idea that instead of curing we have to prevent; that if we can stop toxic waste which is the biggest assault on the environment before it happens then all of us are healthier.

There is the precautionary principle that we should always act as careful, prudent citizens, managers of the common weal. In that case I refer to one of my colleagues from the Reform Party who talked a lot about sound science. Let us wait until science is proven before we act. I would remind him that when Rachel Carson wrote her famous book, Silent Spring , DDT was being used all over the place. She did not wait for sound science to send warning signals.

When lead was being used in our gasoline, more recently, we acted to ban MMT because of the threat of manganese to the environment and to human health. In other words, we have to be precautionary. We cannot wait for proven science to act. We cannot wait until it is too late. That is why the thrust of our report has been to reverse the onus of proof.

Instead of us having to prove that a toxic substance is harmful to human health and the environment, it would be for the user of that toxic waste to prove that it was not harmful to the environment and human health. This is why we believe in the principle that the polluter must always pay, must always bear the burden. This is why we have also enshrined the principle of virtual elimination of the most hazardous toxic substances released into the environment so that there will be a burden on the polluter, on the user of toxic substances, to avoid using them if there is any notion at all that they could be harmful to health and the environment.

I was the Quebec Minister of the Environment when the first Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1988. I can state without fear of being contradicted that my repeated interventions to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment are responsible for the inclusion of an equivalency clause in the act at that time, and I strongly believe in this clause.

The equivalency clause means the following: if a province has an equivalent regulation or act dealing with any issue covered by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and if that province also has a complaint investigation system similar to that provided in the CEPA, the provincial regulation applies rather than the Canadian legislation.

This clause completely demolishes the argument of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues that this act was completely exclusive. It is up to the provinces to establish regulations and a similar complaint investigation system. Then their act would apply.

There is an important role for the federal government in the entire environmental area. Today the Bloc Quebecois spoke as if the Constitution prevented the federal government from dealing with environmental matters. Yet all the Constitution says about the environment is that all levels of government have a role to play.

As the government, the legal entity that represents us at the international level, the federal government has a predominant role to play in the environment. Moreover, this is what the Supreme Court stated in a ruling on the CEPA.

Therefore I think we should look at the present myth that there is no place for federal authority in environmental protection, that the federal authority should be lessened and reduced, or that the federal government should hide, should not be a leader, should not take leadership along with the provinces, municipalities and all other Canadians. We need a system whereby all of us are involved. The record shows that no one jurisdiction is strong enough to take care of the environment.

I have spoken to many environmentalists in Quebec, in Ontario, in Alberta and elsewhere who have signified to me that they need that safety net and that they need as many jurisdictions as possible to be involved in the environment because at the moment the environment has never been looked after as sadly as today. Everybody is devolving. Everybody is cutting back staff. Certainly the provinces are the major culprits in that case.

There was a case for instance in 1996 in Ontario, our largest province, our largest industrial base, when the minister invited industry to let her know what environmental regulations it would want to see in place so that they could do better business, more progressive business.

There was a deluge of answers from the mining industry that wanted to be absolved from regulations on toxicity and effluence. There was an instant answer from the chemical industry that said it wanted to be absolved of regulations concerning illegal dumping of hazardous waste. There were answers from this industry and that industry that said to get rid of regulations, that they would look after themselves.

There brings me to the second myth, that regulations are bad for us, that they are a hindrance to progress and advancement, and that suddenly we should get rid of them. Regulations have not been a hindrance to society's progress. They have been one of the major catalysts for creativity, for inventions and for progress in society.

The examples are around us in multiple form: the seatbelts that we use in our cars, the catalytic converters that we use in our cars, airline safety, registration of medical drugs, registration of pesticides and the control of toxic wastes.

Where would we be without these regulations? Where would we be without a regulation that says we stop at a red light? There would be chaos on our streets.

Today we have the myth that regulation is bad for us, that we should get rid of it and look after our own territory. This would be a way to chaotic non-enforcement of what really means the goodwill, the public trust and the common weal which government is supposed to look after. Its mission is the value system of looking after human health, protection of the environment and protection of basic values in society. The government is the trustee and guardian of this system. It can only do so if it has a background of laws and regulations which enforce in fairness and with reason.

We need a strong CEPA, an active and dynamic CEPA, and a steadily and ceaselessly enforced CEPA. We need a commitment that is there because Canadians need it and want it very badly.

Of all the issues facing us as we go into the next century, the environmental protection case has to be the most cogent. The environment is the defining issue of the next millennium. We need water. We need fresh air. We need a safe environment so that human health can thrive, so that our society can live in peace, harmony and knowing that tomorrow will be a better day. How can we ensure that if chemicals and toxic wastes are being released into our environment without protection and without regulation?

We need a strong CEPA, a dynamic CEPA, a very strong and effective presence of the federal government in environmental protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's dissertation by and large was motherhood. He is saying that we have to keep the world clean and protect our environment. I do not think anyone questions that.

I have a little problem, though, with his philosophy that it is only a benevolent and all powerful federal government that can look after the interest of the general public.

Surely in this day and age with the examples we have seen over the last 50 or 60 years in the world, or in Canada just within the last decade, of the results of federal benevolence we should go slowly in that regard.

However that is not the main point I picked up as a point of dispute. I really have a problem with people in certain branches of the environmental movement who use the argument that we can never be certain about anything before we take action, that we have to take a preventive stance even if we do not know what we are doing, just in case.

This reminds me to some extent of what might have happened in a medieval society where after a period of ongoing crop failures the finger was pointed at some poor old lady in a village and they said she did it, that it was her fault, that she cast an evil spell. They were not sure. They could not prove it so they played safe. The safest thing they could do was to burn her and not worry about logic. They did not worry about debate or, in the case of the hon. member's presentation, they did not worry about science.

What on earth do we have highly paid experts for? Why do we have universities? Why do we have research institutes if we are not to take seriously both the negatives and the positives of their work? Why must we get side tracked and say “It might be toxic. It might be dangerous. Therefore let's be sure. Let's get rid of it and do the science later?” That is a backward way of operating.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what is called an absurd argument. I never made the case that without any signals or without any presumptions we should ban this and that. I never said that.

I said that the precautionary principle puts an onus on us to act when there is a very strong presumption. Of course we do not act when there is no presumption at all.

Let us take the case of endocrine disrupters in the environment. Many eminent scientists in the world are finding out that because of the toxic effluent being released in lakes and so forth fish life is being changed. There is a sort of sexual impact of great magnitude on populations of living species, including the human species.

Scientists in Scotland, Denmark, Canada and the United States have come to the same conclusion. Do we wait until the final proof has been given by all the scientists of the world, by all the scientific bodies?

I remember the argument about global climate change. The Leader of the Opposition still believes in the flat earth society. Although 2,500 scientists have told him there is climate change, he does not want to believe it. They will wait until it is too late.

This is what we are talking about. We are talking about effective presumption and when there is presumption that we move and act before it is too late.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Under the circumstances I will call the time expired. There is little time left and I see two members rising, but we will move on.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

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

I thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his comments on the bill last week. On behalf of my Churchill River constituents and the New Democratic Party we continue to be 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 as it continues the Liberal policy of devolution and removal of federal responsibilities for environmental protection.

I will speak today on the need for a strong federal presence in protecting the environment. I will continue as my colleagues indicated at the outset last week to address the reasons for a strong Canadian Environmental Protection Act. My colleague made reference to Silent Spring by Ms. Rachel Carson as an alarm bell that man has continued along an unsustainable path. The book describes the losses we may face as a society if poor environmental practices, pollution discharges and ecological degradation were to continue unchecked.

As my colleague stated environmental protection is a requirement. Environmental protection is not an option. The original 1998 CEPA evolved because Canadians recognized something was wrong with the environment. There was growing concern about the presence of toxic substances in the environment and the adverse impact on the environment from a variety of pollution sources and industry contributing to environmental degradation.

I remind my colleagues that these concerns continue today. As mentioned by colleagues last week, the majority of Canadians believe more needs to be done to protect the environment. Science and technology have evolved to the point where environmental stewardship does not compromise profitability or contribute to job losses. As my colleagues stated and I shall repeat, going green does not cost jobs or decrease productivity, a principle that the New Democratic Party has stated time and time again in the House and across the country.

As we embark upon the review and the restructuring of CEPA we should remember that recent events demonstrate there are environmental protection problems across Canada. As stated last week Canadians are fully aware of the Plastimets in Swan Hills, the abandoned contaminated sites that dot the landscape from coast to coast to coast and the spills and accidents, some of which could have been prevented.

In the north there are contaminants in mother's milk. What is wrong with this picture when entire food chains are contaminated and where thousand of square kilometres contaminated by man can be accepted as the way things are?

We are continuing to promote environment degradation through inaction and further studies. We have placed economics before the environment. Sustainable development is a theory, not an accepted and practised principle.

My colleague made specific reference to the only comprehensive review to date on CEPA, the report tabled in 1995 by the House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It was entitled It's About our Health—Towards Pollution Prevention . This massive report contains 141 recommendations to improve then Bill C-74, the predecessor to Bill C-32.

The Liberals refused the majority of the recommendations in the 400 responses received by the government during the public review. They ignored a consensus that more effort was needed to ensure the highest standards of environmental protection for all Canadians as a favoured response from the Liberal benches. This statement does not only relate to fact.

Recent environment committee meetings demonstrate that there is something wrong with basic environmental standards, never mind the highest environmental standards. The problem is not the lack of standards. It is the reality that standards on paper or in bills are not being followed, implemented or enforced. The New Democratic Party does not support a sole command and control regulatory framework as a sole parameter or measure for environmental protection.

Co-operative measures, including sharing responsibilities between provincial and territorial governments, indeed all government levels and local governments, to ensure environmental protection at the highest standards can be achieved. However, this government appears to fully embrace the devolution of environmental protection and the abandonment of environmental responsibilities.

Canadians have been fed a line by industry and provincial authorities that overlap and duplication are serious problems. There are limited examples that this is true. This was demonstrated by recent committee hearings which describe non-enforcement and the lack of resources by any level of government to enforce entire sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

This pattern of federation devolution and no responsibility continues with Bill C-32.

As parliamentarians it is our duty to ensure that Canadians receive the environmental standards they expect, deserve and call for.

My colleagues, the Liberal government has demonstrated time and time again that the environment is not important “Let the provinces handle the problem; we will wash our hands clean of this responsibility”. The New Democratic Party cannot support legislation that allows and condones further decreases in environmental protection.

The administrative duties section contains an alarm bell that we must recognize as dangerous. Clause 2(1) makes specific reference to “act in a manner of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements entered into for the purpose of achieving the highest degree of environmental equality throughout Canada”.

We believe that this is a direct reference to the harmonization accord which was signed in January by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec. This accord operates on a consensus basis where any province that protests against or declines participation with the environmental measures can effectively stop, delay or defer cautionary, preventative or proactive environmental efforts.

If a province that relies on a specific industry or economic sector decides to not implement environmental standards for specific toxics or limit an industry's discharge of greenhouse gas emissions for example, CEPA in essence can become null and void.

How can we ignore the calls by business and different levels of government for a level playing field when one province can decide that a lower level of specific standards is okay while a neighbouring province decides higher standards are necessary to protect the health and safety of its citizens and voters?

We are trying to limit job raiding and promote interprovincial co-operation. Why place this opportunity for squabbles on the table?

We will be embarking on a climate change program, we hope, and the country may be held hostage by one, two or three provinces, a grave environmental issue that will affect all Canadians, future generations and the entire planet.

Our concerns are shared by environmental organizations across this country. I expect we will be presented with numerous scenarios as the legislation passes through committee.

The non-protection course the Liberal government appears content to follow is included in various sections of the new act, as was the case in C-74, where specific outs and escape clauses are identified to provide the devolution authority this government cherishes. The equivalent provisions in section 10(3) states: “The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the environment minister, make an order declaring that the provisions of the regulations do not apply in any area under the jurisdiction of the government”.

Members of Parliament and Canadians have been shocked by the reality that these agreements represent. Environment departments across Canada have been cut as a result of deficit battles and transfer reductions. The ability and capacity for environmental protection enforcement and monitoring has reached a critical level.

The federal government signs equivalency agreements with the provinces. The provinces do not have the resources to monitor, inspect and enforce and environmental standards continue to plummet.

The department of fisheries for example is still scrambling to provide water monitoring resources in Ontario after the province opted out of its partnering and harmonization agreement with that department. The fisheries minister has waived inspection responsibilities in several provinces and has not provided reports on enforcement although this is a regulatory responsibility. The provinces are not keeping DFO up to date. The impacts on ecosystems, such as those affected by aquaculture, are ignored by the federal government. Even though there is a memorandum of understanding, the federal government decides not to enforce fisheries regulations. These are a few of the many examples of the highest standards possible, the Liberal definition.

The environment minister heralds a partnering with Quebec pulp and paper effluent regulatory responsibilities. Lo and behold a few days after the ink is dry, it is reported that companies are being let off the hook. Over 20 offences were not being acted upon. We are paying that province to do our job.

My colleagues have mentioned improvements contained in the new Bill C-32. One colleague emphasized enhanced sharing of responsibilities for environmental protection. He obviously has not followed the committee's proceedings.

Through these committees, in the news, from corporate and provincial representation, Canadians have been fed a story of duplication and overlap, restrictive regulations, too much red tape, provincial responsibilities and jurisdictions, unfair representation as stated by my colleague.

Evidence presented over the past several months as Bill C-32 drew near is a direct contradiction. There are improvements in the proposed legislation, legislation which this government is more than happy to ignore and sign off. Regulations are not being enforced. Pollutants are being released. There are overworked staff and insufficient resources. These are the facts. Canadians should not be fooled by what the paper promises.

My colleagues, we need to proceed carefully. We must embark upon this further path of devolution and harmonization. We have the opportunity to create positive and constructive improvements in a new CEPA. We have the opportunity to stop the devolution and weaker environmental protection.

We must ensure that the loopholes for federalist escapes are closed. We must ensure that the checks and balance approach, the precautionary approach is maintained and not lost. We must revisit the outstanding issues and committee recommendations the Liberal government chose to ignore in 1995. We must consider the expansion of whistleblower protection to beyond the public sector and who we are trying to protect otherwise. We must acknowledge the need for improved toxic substance identification and phase-out, not limited by the Liberal example and points on paper, but by action. We must recall the promises made from the fanfare the previous environment minister made in reference to toxic substances, fast track one and two.

The bureaucracy needs five years to study less than three dozen carcinogens. This record must be improved to protect the environment and all Canadians. Sunsets must be included to stop these toxic substances. We must improve the capacity for identification and really fast track the carcinogens issues and toxicity of thousands of chemicals we face in today's environment.

We must expand the environmental registry to include real time access for community right to know, to avoid the Plastimets and the Swan Hills. We must ensure that the readily available information on pesticide use on Canadian lawns and in agriculture is provided and is not only industry based. We must revisit the ability for the environment minister to act swiftly and conservatively when confronted by environmental hazards, not to tie the minister's hands as presented in the new CEPA.

We must ensure that the recognition and inclusion of aboriginal participation in the proposed advisory committee includes opportunities for results, not just lip service. We must seriously consider an environmental bill of rights for all Canadians to provide equal footing for the polluters. We must debate the inclusion of such rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. This was the dream of author Rachel Carson.

The original CEPA followed a command and control regulatory framework. We acknowledge that this can be improved and should include voluntary measures but not as a mandate to pollute. Studies identified that compliance occurs when there is a strong regulatory process and the political will to enforce the said legislation. We must not follow the voluntary path. We must strike a balance between regulatory efforts, enforced efforts and voluntary measures.

There are differences between the original 1988 CEPA and the 1998 CEPA. The different sciences, technologies, chemicals and dangers must also be acknowledged. At the same time effective environmental protection and a truly sustainable path are possible today. In many instances, such as industrial discharges, corrective measures and controls were not readily available previously.

We must ensure that a flexible yet strong continued federal presence in environmental protection is maintained to ensure the protection of the environment as it supports all species. Before the original CEPA the polluters polluted and the victims suffered and died. By victims we cannot consider man alone as the sole reason for our 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 the polluters and support sustainable development beyond this generation. Bill C-32 has strayed from the original principles to protect and to provide recourse. As parliamentarians we must ensure we return to the path which protects the environment first and foremost, a path which includes socioeconomic factors, but not at the expense of our future.

We have an opportunity to enter the next century as responsible citizens, as a society that recognizes the importance of our environment and as a country that enforces the protection of our environment.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill River for his intervention. I would like to ask him to explain to this House the new and expanded measure which refers to citizens actions in this bill. This was actively advocated and advanced by the committee a few years ago, by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. It seems to me that it is a feature in this bill which deserves to be highlighted. I wonder if he would like to give us some of his views on that particular aspect of the bill.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the new CEPA has highlighted the citizen's right to know. In terms of opening up the dialogue and making the communities, the workers and the many industries involved aware is sometimes lacking. The report the hon. member has mentioned is a help. This was a major recommendation which was echoed by many respondents and in many submissions.

I must refer tot he whistleblower legislation as well. The new CEPA limits itself to federal agencies and federal employees. It should be open to public input as well, the union members, dock members and industry members, the workers. It should raise awareness of the environmental impacts these industries or employers are practising. This is part of the citizen's right to know. This is not in the new CEPA and we should enhance that to protect our workers.

[The Speaker]

Questions and comments will continue after Oral Question Period. There are almost eight minutes left.

It being almost 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Gil Robinson

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Gil Robinson, a constituent who has recently returned from working overseas for CESO, Canadian Volunteer Advisors to Business.

Mr. Robinson just completed two terms in Guyana. He was asked to improve the operations of a supermarket in Georgetown and to develop a strategy plan for another supermarket, in Linden.

For the Linden store Mr. Robinson established internal controls to correct a problem with theft, established an operations manual and changed the layout of the store. The Georgetown store was losing money due to excess inventory and high interest rates. Mr. Robinson trained staff in all aspects of food store management and established objectives and priorities.

On behalf of everyone in the greater Moncton area, I want to wholeheartedly congratulate Mr. Robinson for the remarkable work he has done in Guyana.

Mining

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, May 3 to May 7 in Montreal the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum will celebrate its centennial so the government is releasing a new stamp honouring mining. It would be better if it acted on federal issues which endanger mining jobs.

Unsettled native land claims make land ownership and mineral tenure uncertain. That uncertainty was made worse by the supreme court's Delgamuukw decision which raised expectations so high as to endanger settling native claims.

In B.C. alone 50 major land claims are on the table with more to come. Not knowing who is the landlord scares away investors. But Canada's high taxes along with an unfavourable tax structure as well as federal-provincial overlap of regulations also prevent opening new mines.

On the east coast the same negative federal policies combined with low nickel prices have delayed thousands of jobs at Voisey's Bay, Labrador.

It is past time that this government acted on House committee reports to protect Canada's 350,000 mining jobs and help promote new ones instead of just issuing a stamp.

Hepatitis C

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during this debate, the national assistance initiative for hepatitis C victims put forward by the government was harshly criticized.

What has clearly emerged from this scathing attack was that the criticisms themselves did not focus on an issue of major importance: should governments give financial compensation to all those who are harmed not through anyone's fault but as a result of risks inherent in medical practice?

Although a large number of members from the opposition talk about our duty and our moral obligation to pay additional cash compensation, we have not heard much about the impact such compensation would have on the health system itself.

As the health minister clearly indicated in the House last week, the first moral responsibility of the government is to safeguard health insurance for the hepatitis C victims who will need continuous medical attention.

Despite its shortcomings, the Canadian health system is still one of the best in the world. This is why we should not threaten it by hastily creating precedents not based on solid strategic grounds.

Niagara River

[Gary Pillitteri, Liberal, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Niagara River remedial action plan received a sizeable grant under Environment Canada action 21. The grant will serve in the restoration of the Baden Powell park to its natural state as a carolinian forest and enhance the quality of our environment.

In itself this is wonderful news. However, it is important to note that more than 20 community organizations including the city, Niagara College, our park commission and many environmental and naturalist groups were instrumental in the realization of this project.

The Boy Scouts were the largest volunteer group and to date they have contributed more than 3,000 volunteer hours, a wonderful example of how communities working together are an inspiration to all.

Our youth with their enthusiasm and hard work are showing that we can make a difference and be part of the solution toward healthier communities and a better environment.

Hepatitis C

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the debate around hepatitis C and to speak to the fact that many of my constituents who have called me have focused on a couple of areas. One is the legitimate symptoms of the disease such as profound fatigue and the debilitating effects hepatitis C has on their health.

To rectify this situation human resources development has assured me that it will be introducing special training for medical adjudicators to increase their understanding of the progression of the disease and that the government is looking at establishing a special centre of expertise on hepatitis C to increase knowledge and understanding of the disease among Canadian health professionals.

The government is also aware that some individuals with hepatitis C have already experienced difficulty in receiving disability benefits—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a letter from Olis Davies of Langley, British Columbia to the Prime Minister:

Dear Sir:

You seem to have decided which hepatitis C victims should be compensated, for a disease brought on us, through no fault of our own.

We had no control over the year we would be given a death sentence.

Perhaps, Mr. Prime Minister, you would feel differently had someone told you, when you had your illness—sorry, sir, we can't treat you, it's not the year for you to be sick.

All we have to look forward to is very little happiness and an early death.

Do you not feel compassion for the sick people, that up to this time, were loyal, tax paying citizens of Canada?

We send money and help to other countries, why not our own Canadians?

Surely you can cut costs and unnecessary expenses, such as purchasing outdated equipment and unnecessary government spending.

Please! Let your Liberal members vote with their conscience and not force them to go against their better judgment.

Olis Davies

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support today the decision made by the Minister of Health and his partners from the provinces and territories with regard to the compensation of hepatitis C victims. Of course, the easy way for the minister would be to simply pay all those who are asking the government for compensation.

Opposition members seem to believe that moral superiority belongs to those who favour the easiest and quickest solution: offering a global compensation package today without thinking about the consequences it would have tomorrow. However, it is clear that moral superiority belongs to those of us, on the government side, who will oppose the motion.

We have chosen to oppose the motion because we accept the responsibility given to us by Canadians to protect the health care system that is cherished by everyone in this country.

I would like to conclude these brief remarks by congratulating the Minister of Health for having the courage of his convictions and for holding up in the face of harsh, misinformed and petty criticism from those who would want us to compromise the long term welfare of Canadian society for short term political gain.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in assessing the motion before the House on hepatitis C it is important that we look beyond the rhetoric to its real implication for Canadian society.

The opposition motion advocates that we remove any distinction between those who contracted hepatitis C from the blood system within the period 1986 to 1990 when risk reduction actions should have been taken and those people who became infected before or after this period.

The principles this government is applying for hepatitis C are clear, sustainable and responsible. They are the result of some very hard and difficult decisions. In looking at the question of hepatitis C compensation, the Minister of Health and his provincial counterparts had to work from some very broad terms of reference, ones I am sure the opposition would like to hear, ones which encompassed the entire health system.

The collective responsibility of the ministers of health is to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the system for all Canadians now and in the future. I urge my colleagues in this House—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.