Mr. Speaker, in any legislation, words are powerful. Through them public opinion and the courts can judge legislation.
However, as powerful as words may be, any piece of legislation is much more than its wording and words. Indeed, any act of parliament is also an expression and a symbol of the primary objective and intent of the government proposing it.
Moreover, any act of parliament includes certain words and provisions, which, because of the pertinence of their meaning and intent, carry a critical significance.
In the 10 minutes which are allowed to me I can dwell only on a few key elements of the very strong reservations I have regarding certain amendments now before us to Bill C-32, concerning the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, at report stage.
The first strong reservation I have relates to the issue referred to as inherent toxicity. The bill, as it now stands, provides under clause 77 that if the Ministers of the Environment and Health are satisfied that a substance may cause lasting harm because it is persistent and biocumulative and that it is inherently toxic to human beings and other living species, the ministers can recommend that the substance be added to the official list of toxic substances and, in some cases, earmarked for virtual elimination.
On the recommendation of big industry, the chemical industry, the mining industry and other sectors of big business, we are now faced with amendments which will make it immensely more difficult for the ministers to act. Indeed, before they can exercise any judgment or discretion as to the danger of a substance, the substance must have already been determined to be toxic or capable of becoming toxic, according to the provisions of the law.
This is a huge departure from the current test. It effectively nullifies the powers of the two ministers to take prompt action on being satisfied that a substance is inherently toxic and thus dangerous for human health and the environment.
For example, under the amendment proposed by big industry, which is now before us, a protracted risk assessment would be required. To quote one of the committee's main expert advisors during the clause by clause study of the bill, this amendment is “very significant”. He said “The proposed change would gut the bill of the significant direction taken in this clause toward inherent toxicity”. This advisor sat with us throughout the total revision of the original CEPA bill of 1988. He is one of the foremost experts, an environmental lawyer who has sat through all the various revisions, the amendments and the complete work of the committee so far.
I would point out that the inherent toxicity concept was endorsed by the government in its 1995 official response to the committee's report of the same year, entitled “It's about our Health”, and was reflected as well in the predecessor to Bill C-32, namely Bill C-74, which died on the order paper prior to the 1997 election.
My second main reservation concerns the concept of virtual elimination of toxic substances. The original wording of the virtual elimination provision contained in the bill when it was sent to the standing committee for study was judged by the government to be too convoluted and confusing, with which we agreed fully. Therefore, under the direction of the Deputy Minister of Environment Canada a new clause was submitted to the committee as an amendment to the original one. It was moved by the parliamentary secretary in committee and passed with the backing of a large majority. I am sure the Reform Party was against it because it was against every provision which related to the protection of the environment and human health when it affected industry. The Reform Party is traditionally onside with big industry, so when I say the backing of a large majority, I am certain that Reform would systematically be against it, as it is against any provision that speaks of human health and the environment.
Now the government wants to amend its own clause. Big business has asked for the amendment and we have accepted significant recommendations of big business and amended the clause accordingly.
I would like to quote excerpts from a letter from a group of industrial concerns which was written to the government and to all MPs of all stripes. This group consists of the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, the Canadian Electricity Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Canadian Steel Producers, Dow Chemical, Imperial Oil, and the Mining Association of Canada.
This is what they said, among other things:
Unless changes are made, results such as requirements to shut down wood-burning stoves, or municipal waste incinerators in Newfoundland's fishing villages would be the outcome.
No less than the president and CEO of Alcan Aluminum wrote to the government to say, among other things:
—the act could force the closure of all aluminum smelters in Canada.
If that kind of language is not total fearmongering, I do not know what is. This is total fearmongering. As if all aluminum smelters in Canada would close because Bill C-32 would be in force. If it was not so sad it would be a joke.
Time does not permit me to go into a detailed review of the big business amendments proposed, except to say that the current version of virtual elimination in the bill is far better for the environment and human health and should be kept.
Unfortunately, time does not allow me to cover other aspects of other amendments with which I fundamentally disagree in Group No. 1, such as the dilution of the powers of the Ministers of the Environment and Health in favour of decisions made by the cabinet, which was an alternative strongly endorsed by big business.
The Ministry of the Environment forms a part of the economic union committee of cabinet. It is interesting to note that the co-sponsor of the bill, the Minister of Health, sits on the social union committee, a different committee. It carries very little weight compared with much larger and more powerful ministries such as industry and agriculture.
I was involved with the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act since this work started five years ago. It has occupied a significant part of my time since my election in 1993.
When it reached the standing committee I considered Bill C-32 to be a weak reflection of our commitments in the 1993 and 1997 red books. After a large amount of diligent work by all members of the committee, I felt that Bill C-32, as amended in committee, although nowhere as strong as I would have wanted it to be, was a step forward and I fully intended to support it. I still do. However amendments brought by the government have in my view so diluted certain key provisions of the bill that I find myself unable to support the bill if such amendments are passed.
As a deeply committed environmentalist this saddens me greatly, but I dare to hope and continue to hope that between now and then, before all these steps are taken, before Bill C-32 is finally passed, that the bill may be restored to the state in which it is today. I hope that it will not leave that state and that these amendments will be defeated, at least the amendments which make it a weaker bill for the environment and human health. This is my fondest hope, because I certainly wish to vote for the bill if it is in the condition in which it is today. I hope it stays that way.