House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from citizens of the Cariboo—Chilcotin constituency who reside in Williams Lake and 150 Mile House, British Columbia.
The petitioners request that parliament impose a moratorium on Canadian participation in the MAI negotiation until full public debate in the proposed treaty has taken place across the country, so that all Canadians may have an opportunity to express their opinions and decide on the advisability of proceeding with the MAI.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a petition from more than 500 people who support the development of a bio-artificial kidney project in Canada.
These petitioners work in such places as branches of the CIBC in Peterborough, the community credit union, the Leta Brownscombe Co-operative Homes, the Park Hill animal hospital and the Esquire hair salon.
These petitioners note that 18,000 Canadians suffer from end stage kidney disease. They recognize the importance of kidney dialysis and transplants for dealing with that disease but believe that those treatments are not readily available.
Therefore they call on parliament to work in support of the bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis and transplantation for those suffering for kidney disease.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present a petition under Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents of mine.
The petitioners call on this government to reconsider its position with respect to the signing of the multilateral agreement on investment. They are very concerned about this government's haste with which it is participating in discussions to achieve a much more globalized approach to our society. They are particularly concerned about the impact the MAI will have on health care, social programs, culture, labour standards and on the environment.
They call on this government to reject the current framework of the MAI negotiations and to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in the public interests.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you would call Starred Question No. 57. .[Text] <*Question No. 57—
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
When the Deputy Prime Minister, in a statement made outside the House on or before November 15, 1997, indicated that the government's land-mines initiative could be the start of a global movement to spur the development of an instrument to ban firearms worldwide, was the Deputy Prime Minister stating the policy of the government?
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the answer to Question No. 57 be made an order for return. This return would be tabled immediately.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Return tabled.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed 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 committee.
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak this afternoon to Bill C-32, a bill that aims to prevent pollution and protect the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.
We will recall that, on December 15, 1995, the Liberal government proposed revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The proposal by the Minister of the Environment at the time was the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “It's About our Health—Towards Pollution Prevention”.
This report set out the broad lines of a proposal to renew the federal government's main legislative measure on environmental protection.
The Bloc's position on this report was as follows: most of the recommendations supported the centralizing tendency of the federal government in environmental protection matters. I quote what the Bloc said at the time:
The Bloc Quebecois refutes the theory of the double safety net and contends that the environment would be better served if responsibility for its protection were given to one level of government only. The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that the provinces, including Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude significant agreements with national and international partners and have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.
Bill C-32 was introduced at first reading on March 12, 1998. It is designed to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This bill, formerly Bill C-74, which died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament, provides for a five year review, and time has already expired. I also remind the House that this is a promise contained in the Liberal red book.
With this bill, pollution prevention becomes a national objective. This bill replaces the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Among other changes are 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. The list of these substances is very extensive.
The bill provides new powers for investigators and new mechanisms for the resolution of a contravention. It also specifies criteria for courts to consider for sentencing. In addition, like the provinces and territories, aboriginal governments are provided the right of representation on the national advisory committee.
While, in theory, Bill C-32 recognizes the environment as a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces, in reality, this bill does not delegate any power to any province, including Quebec, which, of course, is contrary to what true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government should be.
Bill C-32 is designed to reinforce the federal government's supremacy with regard to environmental protection. Therefore, this bill opens the door to a duplication of federal and provincial powers. On this subject, the government even dares to hide behind the last ruling concerning the environment made by Ottawa's very own leaning tower of Pisa, namely the Supreme Court of Canada.
This leaning tower of Pisa considered a case involving Hydro-Quebec. I remind the House that this case has always been challenged by Quebec and that all the various courts who heard the case, including the Quebec Court of Appeal, concluded that the federal order was not valid. Only the Supreme Court of Canada, this leaning tower of Pisa, in its vision of unity, overruled the rulings made by Quebec courts.
Bill C-32 contains a number of new items. For example, it replaces the federal-provincial committee provided for in the current legislation with a new national advisory committee. This committee is made up of a representative from Environment Canada, one from Health Canada, one from each province and territory and up to six native representatives.
It will advise both federal ministers on the development of regulations, the management of toxic substances and other issues of mutual interest. The provinces will advise the federal minister through this national advisory committee. In fact, the bill provides for co-operation agreements on such activities as inspections, investigations and the gathering of information for monitoring purposes.
The bill includes provisions for native governments, which will enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as the provincial and territorial governments, including the right to sign administrative work-sharing agreements and equivalency agreements with the federal government. Native governments will also have to be consulted over environmental issues affecting their territory. Up to six representatives will sit on the national advisory committee.
The bill also provides for better public participation and better protection for those who report violations of the law. These individuals will be able to take part in the decision making process by submitting to the environment minister comments or notices of objection following some decisions and to ask the minister to investigate alleged violations of the act.
These individuals can ask that their names not be disclosed. The legislation will protect employees who report violations of the federal legislation. Under the bill, individuals will be able to bring action for damage to the environment when the federal government is not enforcing the legislation.
With regard to public information, the law will no longer be limited to data published in the Canada Gazette . The law will create a new public registry containing all the environmental information published under the act such as rulings and regulations. This registry will supplement the National Pollutant Release Inventory set up in 1993.
As for prevention of pollution, it will become a national goal. The bill creates the authority to request pollution prevention plans in respect of substances listed as toxic under the act. Courts will be able to request pollution prevention plans or emergency environmental plans and research on the environmentally friendly use and elimination of the substances involved in the alleged offence.
The new act also creates a national pollution prevention information clearing house, which will enable the industry to share its expertise and technical know-how with respect to pollution prevention activities. Moreover, the new act provides for the setting up of a reward program recognizing the industry's voluntary efforts to prevent pollution.
With regard to biotechnological products, the bill creates a federal safety net and the authority to regulate the safe and efficient use of biotechnology for environmental purposes.
Regarding clean water, the bill seeks to protect the marine environment from land-based or airborne sources of pollution. It is also aimed at limiting what can be disposed of at sea by listing harmless materials; people wishing to carry out disposals at sea will have to prove it is the best solution possible and that what is to be disposed of in such a manner cannot be reused or recycled.
The federal government feels that the bill will allow co-operation with the United States and other countries in order to prevent or limit transborder marine pollution.
Bill C-32 will also increase the power of the government to regulate fuels and fuel additives. Imported fuels and fuels crossing provincial and territorial boundaries will have to meet certain requirements. The bill will give the government the authority to establish national fuels marks, thereby identifying those that meet the environmental criteria.
As far as international air pollution is concerned, the government wants to treat other countries the way Canada itself is treated. Should a country not give Canada rights similar to those granted to that country by Canada, the federal minister may intervene in the event of international air pollution.
To protect the atmosphere, Bill C-32 provides for the establishment of national marks for emissions meeting the standards. It contains provisions to limit emissions from motor vehicles in general, including pleasure craft, construction equipment, farm machinery, snow blowers and lawn mowers.
Also, the bill gives the federal government more control over the transborder movement of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, including household garbage.
I would now like to deal with this bill in regard to the environmental harmonization agreement, which is a crucial issue.
I would like to remind the House of certain facts. On January 29, 1998, Quebec refused to sign the environmental harmonization agreement proposed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. During the meeting of the council, Quebec environment minister Paul Bégin refused to sign the agreement until the federal government agreed to meet the conditions set by Quebec.
Those conditions include recognition of Quebec's exclusive or at least primary jurisdiction in the areas assigned to the provinces by the Constitution, the firm commitment by the federal government to pass the legislative amendments required, and of course the adoption by Quebec and the federal government of a bilateral agreement on environmental assessments.
I would like to quote from the January 29, 1998 press release by the Quebec Minister of the Environment:
Minister Bégin also stressed that the declared intentions of the federal government as to the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which review would lead to a significant increase in federal powers, contravene the spirit and objectives of the environmental harmonization negotiation process, particularly that of preventing duplication and intergovernmental disputes.
This position of Minister Bégin reinforced the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois in its dissenting report of December 1997. I will remind the House that, in its dissenting report, the Bloc Quebecois opposed the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development regarding environmental harmonization.
Hon. members will recall that on November 20, 1996, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment agreed in principle with the Canada-wide environmental harmonization agreement and with two subsidiary agreements on inspections and standards.
The subsidiary agreement on environmental assessments was negotiated during the winter of 1997. This agreement was to enhance environmental protection in a sustainable development context, while respecting each government's jurisdiction, in a more effective way. It was to have contained the general principles to be implemented more specifically through subsidiary agreements.
The Bloc Quebecois has always supported harmonization between the federal and provincial governments when it would serve to eliminate administrative and legislative overlap and duplication between two levels of government. We therefore supported environmental harmonization so long as it did not serve to screen the federal government's continued meddling in provincial jurisdictions.
Harmonization must recognize the provinces' exclusive or at least primary jurisdiction in areas accorded them under the Constitution. The spirit of harmonization should be felt on the amendments the government will make to existing legislation.
The committee also made a number of recommendations. I will refer to a number of them.
The committee first recommended that ratification of the agreement and the three subsidiary agreements be postponed, first until all documents—the agreement and the 10 subsidiary agreements proposed—were available so the public would have a real opportunity to contribute and, second, until the committee's concerns and recommendations had been fully considered.
As we can see, there is already a little problem there. As for Recommendation No. 5, the committee recommended that the consensus requirement in the agreement and subsidiary agreements be replaced with a two-thirds majority vote.
With respect to these two recommendations, the Bloc Quebecois said it believed it was premature for the federal government and the provinces to endorse the harmonization agreement and subsidiary agreements and for the committee to report to the House of Commons because we had not had the opportunity to observe any real desire on the part of the Liberal government to harmonize with the other provinces.
The Bloc Quebecois expressed the opinion that it might be better to wait until the endangered species bill, the fisheries bill and the Canadian environmental protection legislation had been introduced. The Bloc Quebecois added that we would be able to fully assess the harmonization agreement when considering these bills.
Before considering any new subsidiary agreements, the Bloc Quebecois indicated it might be best for the federal government and the provinces to deal first with the three existing agreements on environmental assessment, inspection and standards. In addition, we proposed that the agreements be ratified by a unanimous vote instead of a two-thirds majority vote.
I would also like to touch on Recommendation No. 9. The committee recommended that a provision be included in the environmental assessment agreement stating that it will not require any changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The subsidiary agreement should also specify that the objectives and requirements of the environmental assessment should meet the strictest standards and should meet or exceed the prescribed objectives and requirements.
This recommendation was contrary to the principles of the general agreement, which states that governments may change their respective legislation as required.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois believed that only the Quebec environmental assessment process should be applied in Quebec. The federal government's willingness to achieve harmonization was supposed to be reflected in the legislation, and we considered that Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water destined for human consumption, did not reflect this spirit of legislative harmonization between the federal government and the provinces. On the contrary, we thought it was another intrusion by the federal government in an area under provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois was of the opinion that several recommendations in the Liberal majority report were contrary to Quebec's historic positions in the area of federal-provincial harmonization and that recent interference by the federal government did not respect the spirit of the accord.
What the Bloc Quebecois deplores is that the federal government refuses to transpose in the legislation its good intentions with regard to environmental harmonization and chooses instead to hide behind the centralizing screen of our own leaning tower of Pisa, namely the Supreme Court of Canada.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois, although very concerned with environmental issues, cannot support this bill.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf makes the point that the primary jurisdiction in matters of the environment should rest with the provinces. He made this point several times in several ways.
Hamilton is near my riding. Some months past there was a disastrous fire at a company called Plastimet. Thousands of tonnes of recycled plastic in bales went up in flames, right in downtown Hamilton, spilling into the atmosphere dioxins, furans, all kinds of toxic smoke. The fire went on for more than 24 hours. Some people were made sick by the fire. The water table was contaminated and so on. It was a disastrous fire.
As the probe into this fire goes on, it becomes clear that the Ontario government failed in its responsibilities to ensure that the recycling firm was obeying proper standards of protection to make sure such a fire did not occur. Perhaps not in Quebec but certainly in Ontario the Ontario government is withdrawing in every direction from environmental protection. It is getting out of the field entirely. It is cutting money from environmental protection. It is laying off staff and so on.
I would suggest to the member for Portneuf, whom I respect greatly indeed, had the Plastimet fire occurred in Ottawa or in some community next to the Ottawa River, and that smoke had spilled over into Quebec and if those dioxins and that contamination had gone into the Ottawa River, that fire would have affected and poisoned regions in Quebec as well as regions in Ontario.
Given that, I wonder how the member can possibly feel that provincial jurisdiction exclusively held in matters of the environment would be a protection to Quebec when Ontario is abandoning its responsibilities. Does he not agree that a strong national law is precisely what all Canadians need in the event that any province does not fulfil its responsibilities to the environment as is the case in Ontario just now?
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Madam Speaker, I can well understand the concerns of my hon. colleague. His concerns are healthy and justified. If we use such reasoning, however, are we to conclude that, because acid rain from the United States will affect Quebec's lakes, trees and farms, the Canadian legislation should also look to seeing that the United States does its duty properly? But no, we understand very well that some states will not take their responsibilities seriously enough.
Then steps will have to be taken to encourage them to do so, as Quebec and Canada have done with our American neighbours, in order to raise their awareness of such things as their acid gas emissions which are carried onto Quebec territory by a combination of winds, clouds and rain. Like it or not, the prevailing winds carry acid rain to Quebec. Our maple syrup producers have had problems, as their trees were affected. Our lakes have suffered, and lime has had to be added to allow fish to live in them.
Quebec and Canada have made representations to the Americans, who have seen to it that corrective measures have been put in place. There is much still to be done, mind you, but at least they have finally taken their duty as a government to heart. I am sure that a province like Ontario, rich and responsible as it is, is in a position to shoulder responsibility, provided it knows that no one else is going to.
You will note that Quebec does not necessarily want exclusive control over environmental issues on its territory. It wants greater power, a priority. It does, however, admit that pooled efforts, a partnership with the rest of Canada, since we must call a spade a spade, would be highly desirable. As a matter of fact, such partnership should eventually apply to every NAFTA country in order to have uniform environmental standards so that all industries and businesses are equally respectful of the environment, and provide for environmental impacts in their production costs, thus enabling them to sell their products at competitive prices while respecting the environment.
In short what we are talking about here is bringing environmental responsibilities closer to the decision making centres that are in the best position to assume them. Ottawa will not be able to tell Mexico how to deal with its environmental problems. Mexicans will be able to do it themselves. We must talk, in a respectful manner, and, in this regard, Quebec with its environment ministry and the necessary infrastructure to protect the environment is in a very good position to play an important role. Essentially, this is what Mr. Bégin, the Quebec minister said, and this is what I have ever so humbly repeated.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC
Madam Speaker, I simply wish to make a short comment following the question put by the hon. member opposite.
He spoke about provincial governments being irresponsible and offloading their responsibilities. I want him to look at the results of his own government in the environmental sector.
Members opposite have been telling us all day long that their government is always concerned about environmental issues. However, they said very little about the objectives that were not reached in Kyoto, after being agreed to in Rio. Not only that, they also remained silent on the cuts made in recent years in the Department of the Environment.
Is the member opposite aware that the budget of the Department of the Environment was reduced by 40%? These cuts were imposed by his own Minister of Finance and his government. Is the government aware that claiming to be concerned with the environment is not enough, and that such a claim must be supported by concrete measures?
Here is another example. In Quebec alone, 60% of the 1997-98 budget of $1,329,000 for inspection and investigation activities was used to implement the act and avoid environmental disasters. The other 40% of that $1.3 million was wasted on all sorts of administrative procedures.
Not only is the government opposite not at all concerned with the environment since it reduces its budget, it also shows that the department is poorly managed and that it is far from meeting Quebeckers' environmental needs and concerns.
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague's comment is quite relevant. We can pass all the legislation we want. That is quite easy. We can discuss bills, pass them, and say they should be enforced. But if officials are deprived of the financial and material resources and the infrastructure they need, they will not be able to enforce the legislation adequately.
The fact is that the environment has not been a priority for this government, despite all it can say. We have to admit Kyoto has not been the resounding success Canada could have shared in as a full partner. It got involved at the last minute and played a lacklustre role, which comes as no surprise, since we do not meet our environmental goals, particularly concerning greenhouse gas emissions. We are well behind our stated objectives.
I hope that we will someday stop dragging our feet. Quebec wants to go ahead and does not want to be restricted by a federal bureaucracy that has not served its interests too well, generally. Quebec has already all it takes to assume full responsibility in this area.
Yvon Charbonneau Liberal Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-32 to replace the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
This is an important bill, as my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, pointed out, because it changes the approach to environmental protection in Canada from one of reacting to one of preventing pollution and damage to the environment.
When we look at the overall evolution of the environment, it becomes obvious that we must change our way of looking at things and start with pollution prevention rather than waiting for damage to occur and then reacting.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Canadians throughout the country began demonstrating a growing interest in the environment. They began to become worried about the present, as well as the potential or future, effects of pollution on their environment and their health.
As a result, governments adopted relatively effective and rational strategies for the time, generally in the form of regulations to control pollutants after they had been created, but before they were released into the environment.
In addition, businesses improved their operating methods, based on the technologies then available. Basically, our philosophy of environmental management consisted in allowing pollutants to be created and trying to control them as best we could thereafter.
Therefore, from a historical perspective pollution control has been the main approach to environmental protection. It is true that by limiting the release of pollutants into the environment we have made a significant contribution to environmental protection.
As the Minister of the Environment told us in her speech, we have acted on some of the most dangerous toxins: PCBs, benzine, dioxins and furans.
We now know that more needs to be done. We are now much more aware of the impacts on human health and on the environment caused by every small amounts of substances that are toxic, that accumulate in the tissues of plants and animals and persist in the environment for very long periods of time.
For these reasons we have to shift our approach from pollution control to pollution prevention. The Liberal Party's first red book summarized the challenge facing Canada in precise terms. It stated:
In the past, environmental policy has focused on managing and controlling the release of pollutants entering the environment. This approach has had only limited success. Canada needs a new approach that focuses on preventing pollution at source—
A Liberal government will use the upcoming five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make pollution prevention a national goal—
Bill C-32 does exactly this and incorporates pollution prevention as one of its guiding principles.
Naturally, so that all stakeholders are aware of the rules of the game, we must provide a clear and accurate definition of pollution prevention. The bill gives the following definition of prevention, arrived at after a variety of stakeholders were consulted. The proposed definition is as follows:
The use of processes, practices, materials, products or energy that avoid or minimize the creation of pollutants and waste and reduce the overall risk to the environment or human health.
This could not be clearer.
Therefore, pollution prevention requires a totally different approach from environmental protection. It implies on-site reuse and recycling of materials, changes to existing equipment and employee training. It calls for a complete overhaul of our way of designing and operating our manufacturing plants, our oil refineries, our mines, our farms, our parks, everything.
Planning is at the heart of the pollution prevention approach. Under Bill C-32, a person can be required to prepare a pollution prevention plan concerning toxic substances. Pollution prevention on a voluntary basis in many other areas is also encouraged.
While they are preparing these prevention plans, managers can determine ways to avoid creating pollutants and waste or to reduce them to a minimum. They can also find ways to save energy and water and to use raw materials more efficiently. The preparation of pollution prevention plans provides the businesses with the flexibility they need to develop pollution prevention approaches based both on their needs and on environmental goals.
Bill C-32 supports pollution prevention planning by providing to establish a national pollution prevention information clearing house.
I am pleased that the government has already moved to establish the Internet based Canadian pollution prevention information clearing house to showcase environmental success stories and to demonstrate the economic benefit that can be achieved through the adoption of pollution prevention.
We want to increasingly encourage Canadian companies to take the initiative. Bill C-32 creates awards to celebrate achievements toward pollution prevention.
I think we agree that we ought to celebrate all that we achieve throughout the years.
To attract progress on the success of pollution prevention initiatives this bill includes information gathering powers that require industry to report on pollution prevention activities.
I support this bill, because it will help all of Canada to implement a pollution prevention plan that will be good for our environment, as well as for our international endeavours and our international trade.
As Albert Einstein used to say, an intelligent man solves problems, a wise man avoids them. I think that, based on pollution prevention principles, our future Environmental Protection Act, as renewed and revised in this bill, will rank among our wiser pieces of legislation.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre—Hepatitis C.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the member's remarks.
Earlier on in an intervention I mentioned that in Hamilton, which is near my riding, there was a disastrous fire in a recycling plant which spilled tonnes upon tonnes of toxic smoke into the air. It caused a great deal of damage to the soil and the neighbouring area. Indeed, there is great contention between the various levels of the government, the municipality and the province, about who is responsible and who should take the blame for this disastrous fire.
I would like to ask the member his opinion on a situation like this. Is this not really an example where a national government, for the benefit of all Canadians, should take matters of the environment as a matter of first priority? In fact, is the protection of the environment not a national issue which should be backed up by very strong legislation and by adequate penalties that override any provincial jurisdiction that fails to fulfil its mandate to look after the environment?
Should we not as a national government get tough with those organizations that deliberately take advantage of lax provincial laws and put the environment at risk? Should we not get after these people?
Yvon Charbonneau Liberal Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Madam Speaker, I have had the privilege of sitting on the House Standing Committee on Environment, and have had an opportunity to see some worrisome issues crop up in recent months relating to events in a number of regions of Canada, including the region of Ontario to which my colleague has referred.
I believe that there must be more focus on environmental protection in the years to come. In my opinion, this is a battle that must be fought every day of every year. There must be a constant monitoring of needs, for they are ever-present.
If we look at the means available to us, the position of the federal, and most of the provincial, governments on environmental problems and the need to protect or to repair the environment, the means available are definitely unequal to the needs we are faced with, in this situation as well as others.
This is our role, both as members of the environment committee, and here in public debate. Very soon, the committee will need to devote a great deal of time to determining needs and rallying public opinion, as well as the support of all of our colleagues in the various parties, in order to come up with the best approaches to be equal to our responsibilities.
Those approaches encompass funding, personnel availability and training. They also include legislation and regulation.
For this reason, our legislation includes a practical provision for re-examination every five years. This commitment has already been made by the Liberal Party. It is what we are doing at the present time, and we shall have the opportunity to re-examine all the issues and to enhance our understanding of ones such as my colleague has raised.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks which were very helpful.
Is this not a situation that follows on from what was said by members opposite in the Bloc Quebecois? Is the environment not a situation where we do great disservice and put Canadians at risk if we leave it to the municipalities and the provinces to pass the appropriate legislation and provide the appropriate scrutiny to avoid disastrous fires like the one that occurred at Plastimet in Hamilton? Is this not a situation where the national government has to bring in strong legislation with strong penalties to make sure that this kind of abuse of the environment does not occur, as was the case with the Plastimet fire in Hamilton?
Yvon Charbonneau Liberal Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Madam Speaker, I think future generations would not forgive those of us who are involved in national politics if we failed to deal with situations such as those that arose or with issues of jurisdiction or if we quibbled over matters of precedence at this or that level.
Work has to be done to define environmental responsibilities at the municipal level—because there are responsibilities there—and at the provincial level and come up with measures to protect our environment and our resources for future generations regardless of where fault may lie. If the municipal governments fail to assume their responsibilities, the provincial governments should be there as watch dogs. If the provincial governments also fail, then there should be measures that enable us to intervene in very specific cases. That is what we are working for.
A harmonization agreement has been proposed. I support it. Work has barely begun. Three chapters of ten have been written, but the work should continue and should lead us to better define our responsibilities, level by level, but not for the purpose of quibbling over final responsibility for our environment in the coming years and for future generations.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Is the House ready for the question?