House of Commons Hansard #227 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was health.

Topics

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

moved:

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-32, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 51 with the following:

“sure, as confirmed or amended, is the implementation of subsection 65(3) in respect of a substance, the”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Liberal

Andy Mitchell Liberalfor the Minister of the Environment

moved:

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-32, in Clause 79, be amended a ) by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 51 with the following:

“sure, as confirmed or amended, is the implementation of virtual elimination under subsection 65(3) in respect of a substance, the” b ) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 51 with the following:

“proposed actions in respect of the implementation of virtual elimination under subsection 65(3) of the substance in relation to the”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

moved:

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-32, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 51 with the following:

“proposed actions for achieving virtual elimination in respect of the substance by implementing subsection 65(3) in relation to the”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

moved:

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-32, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 51 with the following:

“proposed actions in respect of the implementation of subsection 65(3) regarding the substance in relation to the”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

moved:

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-32, in Clause 81, be amended a ) by replacing lines 17 to 21 on page 54 with the following:

“this section, the Ministers and and the minister responsible for the Act of Parliament referred to in paragraph (6)( a ) are responsible for determining whether or not the requirements referred to in that paragraph are met by or under that other Act, or” b ) by replacing line 23 on page 54 with the following: a ) if the Ministers and that other minister determine” c ) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 54 with the following:

“regulations made under that Act, the Ministers and that other minister may by order add to” d ) by replacing line 35 on page 54 with the following: b ) if the Minister and that other minister determine” e ) by replacing, in the English version, line 39 on page 54 with the following:

“in Schedule 2, the Ministers and that other minister may”

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 63 with the following:

“Ministers is achieving virtual elimination by implementing subsection 65(3) shall specify”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

moved:

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 63 with the following:

“Ministers implements subsection 65(3) shall specify”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Liberal

Andy Mitchell Liberalfor the Minister of the Environment

moved:

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 63 with the following:

“Ministers is the implementation of virtual elimination under subsection 65(3) shall specify”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

moved:

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 64 with the following:

“with respect to achieving virtual elimination by implementing subsection 65(3) and sum-”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

moved:

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 64 with the following:

“with respect to the implementation of subsection 65(3) and sum-”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Liberal

Andy Mitchell Liberalfor the Minister of the Environment

moved:

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 64 with the following:

“with respect to the implementation of virtual elimination under subsection 65(3) and sum-”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

moved:

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 92.1.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-32, in Clause 93, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 67 the following: w .1) for the purposes of subsection 65(3), the quantity or concentration of a substance that may be released into the environment either alone or in combination with any other substance from any source or type of source;”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

moved:

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-32, in Clause 93, be amended a ) by replacing, in the English version, line 16 on page 67 with the following:

“surements or monitoring;” b ) by replacing line 19 on page 67 with the following:

“carry out the purposes of this Part; and z ) for the purposes of subsection 65(3), the quantity or concentration of a substance that may be released into the environment, either alone or in combination with any other substance from any source or type of source.”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Liberal

Andy Mitchell Liberalfor the Minister of the Environment

moved:

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-32, in Clause 95, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 13 and 14 on page 69 with the following:

«violation d'un règlement pris en vertu des articles 92.1 ou 93 ou d'un arrêté pris»

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

moved:

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-32, in Clause 95, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 69 with the following:

“regulation made under section 93 or an”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Liberalfor the Minister of the Environment

moved:

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-32, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 74 with the following:

“100. The Ministers may, by”

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

moved:

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-32, in Clause 100, be amended a ) by replacing line 15 on page 74 with the following: c ) for the purposes of implementing international agreements, add to Part 3 of the Export Control List” b ) by replacing line 17 on page 74 with the following:

“which is severely restricted in Canada by or under an”

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-32, in Clause 101, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 75 with the following:

“specified in Parts 1 and 2 of the Export Control List in Sched-”

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-32, in Clause 102, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 75 with the following:

“specified in Parts 1 and 2 of the Export Control List in Sched-”

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-32, in Clause 199, be amended by replacing lines 43 to 46 on page 139 and lines 1 to 11 on page 140 with the following:

“an environmental emergency in respect of a substance or group of substances specified on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule I.”

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I will take a few moments to describe for the people who are watching what we are debating.

This is legislation that was brought forward in 1988 and in the legislation it stipulated that it would come back to the House in five years for review. It came back in the last parliament; however, the bill that was proposed did not gain support and died on the order paper. In this parliament Bill C-32 is the result of the new bringing together of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It is a large bill. It is comprehensive. It is technical and it contains over 230 pages. What is significant is that there were over 400 amendments introduced at committee stage. Now there are 236 amendments at report stage. There are more amendments than the House has seen to any bill in a number of years according to the clerks.

We will be discussing in the first group of amendments the management of toxic substances, the application of virtual elimination, inherent toxicity and prior informed consent. This is a fairly technical bill and we will be dealing with some of these issues.

I would like to talk about the application of virtual elimination. Virtual elimination means pretty well what it says, that a chemical would be virtually eliminated. However, the difficulty with this bill concerns the ability to measure. I will be showing my age, but if we go back 20 or 30 years most of us will remember that the ability to measure was in parts per million, then it went to parts per billion, then to parts per trillion, and perhaps now to parts per quadrillion.

Industry requires goal posts. For instance, when building a plant, if there is a nasty chemical such as dioxin, which occurs naturally in forest fires or wood smoke, if that is to be virtually eliminated, industry requires goal posts to be set. If industry knows that it is one part per billion, it can deal with that. Industry will know what it will be dealing with down the road. However, the bill does not say that with respect to virtual elimination. Therefore, we have proposed, along with a number of other people, changes to clarify the issue. Unless changes are made to the application of virtual elimination in the bill, Canada will be out of step with internationally accepted approaches. For example, Germany has numbers.

A witness appeared before the committee who made a very pointed remark. If there is a point of one part per billion and industry steps over it, it can be taken to court. It is very clean cut. However, if there is a very fuzzy goal post of the ability to measure, that could be in litigation for over 10 years. In fact, technology could supersede the ability to measure and it would just muddy the waters.

An enormous disincentive will result when companies are forced to plan for unrealistic results. There are really no environmental or health benefits from this approach. It simply ties the hands of investment in this country.

The Reform Party has put forward 10 motions which deal with the application of virtual elimination. It is interesting, as well, that the government and the Progressive Conservatives have put together 13 amendments to bring the application of virtual elimination into a scope that we can all deal with.

There are a number of amendments put forward by the Reform Party and the government which ensure that specific reference to implementation of subsection 65(3) is maintained in the act when dealing with the application of virtual elimination. Many of the motions accomplish virtually the same thing as our motions. In fact, the reason they are grouped is because they are very similar.

The intent of the amendments put forward by the Reform Party is to eliminate ministerial discretion when determining whether circumstances have been taken into consideration and to emphasize the role of science in decision making.

In 10 minutes one cannot really deal with many of these subjects in depth because of their complexity, but I would also like to deal with prior informed consent, which is addressed by our Motions Nos. 130, 132 and 135. Our amendments would ensure that Canada prohibits the export of substances placed on a list which, by international agreement, are banned or severely restricted substances, rather than allowing the government to prohibit the export of any substance regulated in Canada.

I was really quite surprised that the government did not propose amendments with respect to sections 100, 101 and 102 of the act concerning the implementation of the prior informed consent convention that Canada has entered into. When the government introduced these sections to the committee it was explained that the purpose of these sections was to allow Canada to fulfil its obligations under the prior informed consent convention, which is also known as the Rotterdam convention, which was finalized last fall.

The sections which the government proposed, while they enable Canada to fulfil its obligations under that convention, are far broader than what is necessary for the purpose. I believe that is the crux of the matter. The main point is: How broad do we need this act to be? The act should fulfil the convention. However, it goes far beyond that and gives far broader powers than we feel are necessary. The legislation should not go beyond what the government initially said was necessary.

In Reform Motion No. 90 we suggest that the purpose should be, as was explained to the committee by government officials, for the implementation of international agreements. We agree with that.

Since the international agreement that we are talking about is the prior informed consent convention, we need to look at the scope of that convention. The negotiating process resulted in the PIC convention being applied to banned and severely restrict substances. The term severely restricted is clearly defined in the convention.

We feel that powers should not be created for the government to ban the export of substances without their being sound reasons in the bill. At present there are no sound reasons shown in the bill. Powers such as these, which can be exercised arbitrarily without any guidance from parliament, will create significant investment uncertainty in Canada in the business world.

This uncertainty is particularly important and worrisome for the increasing numbers of companies which have as their primary focus of business in Canada export opportunities. We are well aware that the world is shrinking and that Canada is an exporting country. Therefore, this portion of the bill is very worrisome for many industries in Canada.

Another reason this issue is important is that if Canada is to take a leadership role on environmental issues internationally, which the Reform Party and I am sure most members of the House support, it is important that we are responsible domestically to implement what we negotiate and agree to. To implement something that goes beyond what we agree to in an international convention I do not believe is wise and will be seen by our negotiating partners as irresponsible. We would put at risk Canada's status as an international leader.

We do not want to create unnecessary powers for the government for no apparent reason which go beyond PIC powers and create investment uncertainty. We hope that other parties will agree to this approach and vote favourably to the proposed amendments to sections 100, 101 and 102.

I will conclude at this point. My colleague will continue to speak about inherent toxicity and toxic substances which are also in this group. As I said earlier, it is very difficult to capsulate in 10 minutes what is a 232 page bill.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Burlington Ontario

Liberal

Paddy Torsney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32 and to the many motions that have been put forward within Group No. 1.

As the member opposite has recognized, the motions that we are dealing with today deal with export controls, virtual elimination and focus on toxics. The preamble of Bill C-32, as amended by the standing committee, talks about the phase-out of the generation and use of persistent and biocumulative toxic substances.

Government Motion No. 2 proposes an amendment to make the statement in the preamble consistent with that which is in the bill.

There are also changes on biotechnology and the administrative duties of the bill. As a result of the amendments put forward by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the administrative duties now correctly reference products of biotechnology.

For clarity, government Motion No. 9 retains this reference but places it in a separate clause that recognizes the need to protect the environment by providing for the safe and effective use of biotechnology.

I think all members will agree that the bill in its entirety is focused on making sure that we are producing a win for the environment, a win for the Canadian public and a win for the future health of Canadians. The bill is on the leading edge of environmental protection worldwide. It focuses on pollution prevention, the protection of our environment and the health of all Canadians. It strengthens the environmental protection act, as the member opposite has mentioned, a piece of legislation that came in some five years ago.

One of the key components of the bill is the section on virtual elimination. Virtual elimination means reducing the releases to the environment of a very small number of the most dangerous toxic substances to a level where these releases cannot be measured.

Right now we are talking about 12 substances in Canada that have been found to meet the criteria for virtual elimination. Nine of these substances, one example being DDT, are banned in Canada. Controls are in place or are being developed for the remaining three. There are 23,000 substances in commerce in Canada. It is estimated that over the next number of years 10 or 12 could also be slated for virtual elimination.

Why are we doing this? Even extremely small releases of certain substances to the environment can create problems that are extremely costly or impossible to correct. This is particularly true of substances that are: toxic as defined under the environmental protection act; primarily the result of human activity; persistent, take a long time to break down, if ever; and bioaccumulative, collect in living organisms and end up in the food chain.

A prime example of this is the insecticide DDT, which I mentioned earlier. It was introduced into Canada in the 1940s. It was responsible for causing drastic reductions in many bird populations, especially those at higher levels in the food chain such as gulls, cormorants and bald eagles.

Despite the ban in Canada on all major uses of DDT in the 1970s, today DDT is being detected in the breast milk of Canada's Inuit people. The bill will make sure that we remove these substances from our communities and from the environment in Canada.

The bill is based on the regulatory relief limit that is very precise, the limit that industries will be obliged to meet after this limit is set. That will come after consideration of the health and environment risk to Canadians, of the social and economic situation, and of technical matters. Does the technology exist? Do we need to develop something else?

Sometimes achieving the virtual elimination of these substances will not be immediately feasible. The bill recognizes the need to consider all these matters.

The government amendments to these sections, represented in a whole series of motions, will make it clear that virtual elimination planning and regulatory requirements will be set after consideration of environmental or health risks, as well social, economic and technical matters. This is a common sense approach.

With the special regime for the virtual elimination of the most dangerous and toxic substances, Bill C-32 is on the leading edge.

The member opposite talked about inherent toxicity. To be slated for virtual elimination, a substance must meet the criteria for toxicity in section 64 of the bill. Government Motion No. 88 clarifies ambiguous language in subsection 77(3) to make sure that the only toxic substances are put on the track to virtual elimination. This is consistent with other sections in the bill and the government's commitment to risk-based decision making.

Let us talk about export controls. Government Motion No. 128 is a technical amendment to make it clear that it is both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health who add a substance to the export control list. This is about stewardship. It is about people being responsible within our borders for what they are producing and what they are sending elsewhere.

I would like to talk for a couple of seconds about some of the opposition motions that are before us. The Bloc Quebecois have several motions that would need the agreement of the provinces before we could move ahead with virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances.

Let us be clear. In 1998 the federal government and all the provinces and territories endorsed the national policy for the management of toxic substances. That policy is reflected in the bill.

Bill C-32 is consistent with the policy which calls for the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances. With the new CEPA, the federal government will continue to work closely with its provincial and territorial partners in taking action to deal with toxics.

The New Democratic Party wants to alter the definition of toxic and to abandon the current practice of making decisions based on risk. The government is committed to a risk-based approach when dealing with toxic substances. Basing our decisions on an assessment of risk to the environment and human health is the internationally accepted way of doing things. Abandoning it would produce no environmental benefit and would put Canada out of step with the other nations with whom we work so closely to protect the environment from the threat of toxics.

Both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party want to return the definition of virtual elimination to that which was originally proposed in the bill. The standing committee heard that the definition of virtual elimination that originally existed was confusing and could have been interpreted in conflicting ways. The government amendments corrected this problem. The definition in the bill is clear and credible.

Ultimately, reducing releases of the most dangerous of toxics to the point where they can no longer be measured is our goal for virtual elimination. Striving for anything less would put the environment and the human health of Canadians at unnecessary risk.

Let us talk about the Progressive Conservative amendments. Substantive gains have been made in this piece of legislation. Since there are several pieces of federal legislation that govern new substances and the expertise is shared across several government departments, it is appropriate that the decision making is in the hands of the governor in council.

A key point of the bill, which some people choose to ignore, is that CEPA sets the standard. Other acts must assess for toxicity to determine if the new substance has the potential to harm the environment or human health.

Let us talk about the Reform cross-referencing amendments to delete all mention of virtual elimination outside the definition in section 65. That would make the goal of virtual elimination unattainable. It would leave the definition of the bill without any corresponding operational clauses. We are not prepared to do that. It would be bowing to industry, to the mythology of some of the paranoia that has existed.

Reform amendments to the export control provisions would weaken Canada's ability to control exports of dangerous substances. It would add “for the purposes of implementing international agreements” and the concept is “severely” restricted. These limit the scope of the sections dealing with the export of toxics. It would take away Canada's ability to control exports of potentially dangerous chemicals unless they were covered by an international agreement.

Reform Motion No. 92 would make it impossible for Canada to control exports of CFCs which are responsible for depleting the earth's ozone layer. It would be kowtowing to industry, it would not be a good thing and it would take us to pre-Reform Party, pre-1985.

The bill is about stewardship. It is about pollution prevention. It is a good bill that is important for the health and environment of all Canadians. I urge all members to support it with the amendments we are proposing.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the report stage of Bill C-32, and to have an opportunity to show you just how many shortcomings there are in this bill.

This was my first experience with a clause by clause study of a bill in committee. I must say it was a most disconcerting experience for me, to say the least.

The process was a lengthy one, and introducing and withdrawing hundreds of amendments was very confusing. To top it all off, for a number of clauses, the English and French versions did not correspond. We adopted more than 160 amendments, and no doubt there would have been more if we had not got fed up.

Still today, at the report stage, the hundreds of amendments before us prove without a doubt that this bill needs to be totally reworked, not just changed here and changed there, but totally reworked. Otherwise, we will end up with a bill that lacks rigour, consensus and vision.

Throughout this committee process, I noted this government's flagrant lack of good will. Here we are, stuck with an unfinished bill for the next 10 years. This is not a process that is undertaken every year.

We in the Bloc Quebecois wanted to do this. Here are a few examples to show our good will on this issue.

First, public participation: what a lovely expression. Unfortunately the government is letting cumbersome administrative and legal procedures take precedence over the public's legitimate demand for a healthy environment.

Second, toxic substances: once again, the government is putting off updating the list of toxic substances. It will wait seven years. When will the new substances be analyzed? This is urgent. Why procrastinate?

Third, enforcement: with this bill, the federal government wants to set new rules for the environment. How can it enforce them? Even with the current legislation, it has cut staff drastically. There are fewer inspectors, so there is less enforcement. The government cut the department's budget by several million dollars. It should seek to enforce what is already in force before thinking of extending its power to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Some facts must be pointed out. 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 response set out the broad lines of a proposal to renew the federal government's main legislative measure on environmental protection, CEPA. This was a promise made in the red book.

The Bloc opposed the report, and made that perfectly clear by tabling a minority report. Most of the recommendations in the majority report supported the centralizing tendency of the federal government in environmental protection matters.

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, especially 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.

The government introduced Bill C-74, but the bill died on the order paper when the election was called in 1997. After the election, the government introduced a new bill, Bill C-32, born from the ashes of Bill C-74, at first reading on March 12, 1998.

It should be noted that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is required to undergo a review every five years, and that deadline is already past.

Does the renewed Canadian Environmental Protection Act give powers to Quebec and the provinces? Definitely not.

In theory, Bill C-32 recognizes the environment as a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces. Unfortunately, all the rhetoric and pious wishes are not matched with action.

The bill does not delegate any power to Quebec or any of the provinces, which is contrary to what true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government should be.

With Bill C-32, now at report stage, the Liberal government is reinforcing the federal government's supremacy in the area of environmental protection.

This bill opens the door to duplication of federal and provincial powers. To this end, the government even dares to hide behind the latest supreme court ruling on an environmental issue, in P.G. Canada v. Hydro Quebec.

I will now address the four main changes made to the bill at committee stage.

A new definition of virtual elimination is provided at clause 65.(1). It reads:

In this part, “virtual elimination” means, in respect of a toxic substance released into the environment as a result of human activity, the ultimate reduction of the quantity or concentration of the substance in the release below the level of quantification specified by the ministers in the list referred to in subsection (2).

Before we create new definitions devoid of meaning, we must make sure we can achieve the highest standards in the world. By way of example, the harmonization of federal environmental standards with those of European countries, such as Germany, would be a big step in the right direction.

We could see there was a problem of harmonization among the various positions in the bill referring to virtual elimination. The new definition of virtual elimination has not been uniformly applied to all the clauses concerning this issue. Accordingly the Bloc Quebecois is proposing amendments to respond to these inconsistencies in Bill C-32.

The committee eliminated all references to cost-effective measures the government was to take under Bill C-32. The committee based its decision on the fact that the government did not want to explicitly define the word cost effective in the bill.

In the face of this legal void, the committee decided it was simply preferable to eliminate the term, considering that in the context of sustainable development, it is understood that government measures are to be cost effective. On this issue, the Bloc Quebecois' position was the same as that of the committee. We should delete a term that has not been defined in the act.

Hormone disrupting substance means a substance having the ability to disrupt the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action or elimination of natural hormones in an organism, or its progeny, that are responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis, reproduction, development or behaviour of the organism.

The bill now specifies that the federal government shall conduct research or studies relating to hormone disrupting substances for preventive and abatement purposes, to deal with the negative effects of these substances on health.

In this regard, we think the federal government should limit its activities to conducting research and studies in this area. All the other aspects mentioned in the bill should come under the provinces' responsibility.

The greatest concern about Bill C-32 is undoubtedly the issue of harmonization with the provinces. Under the original version of Bill C-32, the federal government was going to act in accordance with the intent of intergovernmental agreements. The Liberal majority softened this requirement by adding the word endeavour before the verb to act.

The Bloc Quebecois maintains that the federal government must always keep in mind the prospect of harmonization with the provinces, to avoid duplication and overlap in the legislation and regulations. By trivializing federal-provincial harmonization agreements, the Liberal government clearly shows that it lacks the will to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces with regard to the environment.

The Bloc Quebecois will table amendments, including one to have the term “endeavour” deleted from the current version of Bill C-32. I hope the government will give us its support.

As for the agreements respecting the administration of the act, clause 9 of the bill provides that the minister “may negotiate with a government with respect to the administration of this act”.

Considering all the issues raised, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill at report stage.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Rick Laliberte NDP Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to an act respecting pollution. If we stopped at that we would be in great danger.

Pollution in this country was given a free ride for generations and decades. The protection of the environment and human health is the most important part of the act and contributes to sustainable development. That is the weight of this act.

We must respect the toxicity and the dangers pollution poses to our health, our organisms, our plants, our animals, our biodiversity, the air we breath, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Pollution has made its way into our entire being. Therefore we must find strong legislation.

We received a wake-up call in the 1960s when the terms ecology and ecologists came into being, along with the environmental bill of rights for all Canadian citizens, especially our children. That is what CEPA is deemed to be and where it will evolve in the future. It may not have achieved it in this round and it certainly did not achieve it in the first round.

In the first round pollution control was the key word. We tried to control pollution in our air, our water and our soil. Bill C-32 is designed to bring about pollution prevention, to eventually stop pollution.

That is the challenge we faced when we looked at the original draft of Bill C-32 during clause by clause consideration. It was referred to the committee on April 28, 1998. It took us a whole year to review it. Up to now over 800 amendments have been brought forward. This is strong enough message that something was wrong with the basis of the bill.

The committee heard from non-government environmental organizations and health associations across the country. These organizations and countless other groups came before the committee to offer their view that the bill was a biased industry bill designed and drafted for industrial purposes.

Last September committee members asked these organizations how much access they had to the minister. All these health and environmental organizations said that they had limited access to the Minister of Environment. We asked the same question of industry representatives who replied that they had unlimited access to the minister. They were happy with the balance between the environment and the economy as set out in the bill.

Through the whole committee process everybody rolled up their sleeves in a happy forum under the auspices of a good chair. In this democratic process we tackled the bill through thick and thin. Many amendments were lost and won. We felt the bill stood a chance of getting passed in the House. We looked forward to possibly supporting the bill which would ensure good health for our children and our families and clean air, clean water and clean lands.

We endeavoured to look at pollution prevention. We looked at a number of opportunities to enhance it. One of the issues that came out was precautionary principle, one of the highlights of the bill, which included the term cost effective. Through the committee process we were successful in taking the cost out of effective measures. Cost effective did not take into account that there were health matters. If pollution continues to enter our environment and continues to inflict illnesses on our children there are various costs: the health costs, the loss of work costs, the insurance costs, the cost of securing homes, the cost of buying cleaner water, and the cost of ensuring food is well prepared. These costs are not taken into consideration. The cost for our citizens, the cost for Canadians for clean food, clean water and clean air were not the definition of cost effective.

Cost effective was an industrial measure for controlling pollution. It was uppermost in the government's mind. Lo and behold we tossed out cost effective and included measures, that beyond scientific evidence precautionary measures should be taken.

Again cost effective came back into this round of amendments before the House from the government side. Obviously the industry has put its foot down. We would tell all members and all Canadians who are listening that the cost effective measures do not improve environmental measures. They look after the industry's needs and the industry's costs.

Another issue comes into play, that is virtual elimination which is a new term in law. In essence Bill C-32 is a piece of legislation which will be the law of the land. Virtual seems to be a high tech word. It is like virtual reality. It is not quite there. In my interpretation of virtual elimination we do not really want to prohibit or phase out toxic substances. We will try to do it to a point but there will always be a trickle of toxic substances in Canada.

I was quite startled when the minister said that in law we could not measure zero. That was a real awakening call. It will be a challenge to try to find a legal definition of zero. The closest the government has come up with is virtual elimination.

We lived through this phase of virtual elimination. We accepted where it was going. We kind of understood the integrity of the government, that it would try to achieve virtual elimination in the evolution of the bill and carry forward. However a big part of the virtual elimination is in clause 65(3) where the topic is defined as achieved virtual elimination.

Achieving virtual elimination is the task at hand. Members have proposed amendments to remove the achieving of virtual elimination. It is unacceptable. It does not make any sense for it to be taken out of the bill because achieving virtual elimination was the task of Bill C-32.

Another issue, which I will close on, is the phase-out of the generation and use of toxic substances. There are amendments to take out this part of the preamble and replace it with virtual elimination.

Canadians would understand and sleep better at night if they knew that the preamble of the bill was to phase out the generation and use of toxic substances. In essence the government and some of its members want to have virtual elimination in the preamble.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

4:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, at report stage. When the member for Davenport talked about this piece of legislation, he referred to it as “a very pioneering bill. It is Canada's principal bill with respect to the controlled use of toxins in the environment.

It was a very pioneering bill that was first established by the Progressive Conservative Party in 1988 by the hon. Tom McMillan and spearheaded by the former environment minister, the hon. Jean J. Charest. It is in that light that I take great pride in trying to augment this particular bill as we went through the clause by clause process at committee level.

Alarm bells should go off for Canadians when they hear that the bill had over 400 amendments at the clause by clause process and now we are facing over 200 amendments. That is almost 700 amendments. I believe this shows that the bill is flawed in its own right.

After speaking to my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska, I know he is not all that surprised by this. This is a government, after all, which has not passed one piece of environmental legislation despite the fact that it has been in office for six years. It did pass the MMT bill but that cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million because it was not banned under CEPA, which is what the government should have done in the first place.

The fact that we are cleaning up the government's work should not come as a surprise to Canadians when it comes to the environment.

I will refer to a couple of issues that fall in Group No. 1, particularly the issue of virtual elimination. We were satisfied that the original definition contained in the bill before it went to committee was workable. It provided for the reduction of releases to a quantity of concentration below a measurable amount that was at or approaching the lowest level of quantification.

We supported regulations to control the release of substances to define virtually eliminated amount. We also supported the bill's power under section 93 to totally, partially or conditionally prohibit the manufacture, use and processing of toxic substances. We believe that if the government intended on eliminating use of a substance, it should use the provision. Otherwise, if it intends to virtually eliminate a substance then it should be able to set levels of release by regulation that are virtually negligible.

I would like to mention something that is almost unprecedented in my short time here in the House and, as I understand it, for a lot of people who have been here for quite some time. We are about to make an amendment to an amendment.

The government had a definition in Bill C-32 of virtual elimination before it went into the clause by clause process. The parliamentary secretary tabled an amendment which passed. He is now tabling another amendment admitting the government goofed not once, but twice. I think the government had it right the first time, but at least it had the sense to recognize that. It tabled an amendment just the other day after we had already put in the amendment that corrected it.

We now have two levels of virtual elimination to establish and achieve. It is unclear as currently written which one would be deemed the operable amount. There is first a supreme goal of virtual elimination defined as the ultimate reduction of the quantity or concentration of the substance in the release below the level of quantification specified by the minister in the virtual elimination list.

Level quantification is defined as the lowest possible measured amount. The ultimate goal is to get below that amount.

Then there is this process to help us gradually get there and it is called “achieving virtual elimination”. In this section, the minister prescribes a quantity or concentration of a substance that may be released into the environment. This is very different from “below a level of quantification, which is the lowest concentration that can be accurately measured”. Instead it is a realistic level that industry is required to attain when aiming for elimination.

If the government's intentions were to make the level set under achieving virtual elimination the objective industry is to pursue, then it should be made clear. My amendments, the amendments of the Progressive Conservative Party, make this process clear. They clean up the change the government and the Reform Party supported in committee.

I would like to emphasize that this mistake was actually supported by not one party but two parties at the clause by clause level: the government and the Reform. However, both parties have recognized that the original wording was the right way to go.

The government's amended committee language creates uncertainty. This is because there is a gap between a level that is a step below the lowest measurable quantity and a level that achieves virtual elimination by targeting a release amount prescribed under subclause 65(3) which considers social, economic and technical matters. This means there would be a gap between what the law prescribes we achieve and what we actually enforce.

Based on the voting pattern document I received this morning, my amendments on this clause will be put before similar ones introduced by Reform, the Bloc and the government. As a result, given that we want to proceed in a very time effective way, I would be very shocked if the government were to vote against our amendment because it would be voting against its own amendment in a very different way. I would also be shocked if Reform did the same and somewhat shocked if the Bloc did as well.

The definition of virtual elimination, as originally tabled in Bill C-32 before it went to clause by clause, is a better way to go and that is what the Progressive Conservative Party will be doing with its amendment in terms of trying to clean up the government's error.

The bill that was sent to committee included a clause 2.2, which called for the avoidance of duplication and overlap in legislation regulation in areas that involve the protection of the environment and human health. It proposed to resolve any potential disputes by having the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the minister responsible for the other act jointly decide whether measures that can be taken under the act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter.

This was removed from the act during the committee review in favour of introducing separate clauses in appropriate sections of the bill where the potential for overlap and duplication existed.

The new clauses shifted the power to decide which law would prevail to cabinet from the three ministers, except in the case of biotechnology where the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment make the decision.

Members may actually agree that my amendment makes more sense. My amendment would actually have the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the applicable other minister make a collaborative decision. Those are the ministers who would know their acts the most. It would provide Canadians with political accountability about who is making decisions, as opposed to sending it to some murky area known as the cabinet.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of National Revenue. These are individuals who know their portfolios quite well. However, why would we ask them to make an intervention in a piece of legislation that, quite honestly, they do not study on a day to day basis. That is why I believe it is more prudent for us to have it done by the Minister of Health, the Minister of the Environment and one other. My amendment tries to do that in this very section.

I would also like to point out a couple of other motions that the Progressive Conservative Party intends to support. The first one is the NDP Motion No. 26. It attempts to further entrench the precautionary principle in the administrative duties section of the act. We supported this inclusion of the principle at committee stage and we support this motion which defines what the precautionary principle means for the purposes of this section.

NDP Motion No. 83 attempts to do the same, except this time it defines the reference to precautionary principle referred to in the section dealing with screening and assessment of toxic substances.

There is one motion, which I am a little bit troubled by and which I think Canadians should be very concerned about. It is Motion No. 206 tabled by the Reform Party. This motion, dealing with emergency planning, refers to one of the most severe toxins in existence being slated as a schedule 1 toxin. Once a substance has been slated as being toxic, the government can then ask a particular industry or company to provide a pollution prevention plan. This motion will not allow that. Once a toxin has been slated for fast-tracking to a schedule 1 toxin, the Reform Party wants to wait to have it approved by cabinet.

What concerns me is that the Reform Party believes that cabinet may actually say, “Well, we know this is a very harmful substance, but, gosh, maybe we should not do it anyway”. I think the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health should be able to make that call. If it is toxic, it is toxic and it requires a pollution prevention plan.

I know industry is not that concerned about that particular amendment. I would think that if we are protecting human health and the environment, then that would be the right thing to do.

Given that I do not have enough time to speak about the large number of amendments that we have, I am very pleased with the position we have taken in terms of virtual elimination, as it is a workable definition. Given that our motion will be up first, I trust that the Reform Party, the government and the Bloc, which have similar motions that accomplish the same objective, will vote for our motion as opposed to voting for another for purely partisan purposes.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be here to speak to Bill C-32 after toiling for a year in committee on the bill. It is great to have it back in the House and to have the opportunity to debate it in a public forum.

As has been mentioned by some members, it has been quite a process. The bill was first tabled in the House on March 12, 1998. We are now 14 months to the day from the time it was first read in the House. We have had witnesses from all aspects of Canadian society. We have had industry, people from the environmental groups and people speaking to us about children. We should listen to everybody in Canada because pollution prevention is everybody's job and everybody's problem.

We dealt with 400 or 500 amendments at committee and now we have 230-some more. This just goes on and on. We debated at length many aspects of pollution prevention in committee. Certain members of the committee wanted to take the bill in one direction and some wanted to take it in another. Quite frankly, we felt fairly comfortable with the bill that was presented in the first place.

It is one thing to try to take a piece of legislation to the nth degree to command and control absolutely everything, but if we do that, I believe we would lose some of the people involved in the process. The bill will limit the use of toxins in our society and in the way we do business. If we are going to alienate the people in the country who are involved in the use of those and take the bill to a point where it is not manageable or not workable, then I believe we are doing more harm to the environment than if we come up with something reasonable.

Balance is a word we have heard a lot of and will continue to hear as we debate the bill. We must have the proper balance. We cannot go too far one way and we certainly cannot go too far the other way. We have to stand back and look at what we are doing on occasion to see if there is a little bit of common sense in what is going on. Canada has to stay in tune with the rest of the world. We have to fulfil some of the international obligations that we have been part of. We also have to be a leader and, in many aspects, we can be.

Over the months that this was at committee, the hardest working person on the Hill was the whip of the Liberal Party. We had people sit and vote in committee who, quite frankly, I had never seen before. They certainly did not know the issues but they did vote. It was an interesting scenario to live through. We saw people at the committee who were talking on telephones, reading newspapers and whatnot. It was unfortunate that had to happen. Our party attended as many meetings as we could. If we look back at the record, we attended most. We were there and took part in the debate.

The Reform Party originally put forward very few amendments because we felt it was a bill that had balance, that could work, and that it was a piece of legislation that would help Canadians.

I will read a little from the preamble to bring back into focus what the bill is intended to do. The bill is an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. We can all agree with that because it does not split up sections of the environment or sections of human life. It says “the environment” in total and “human health” in total.

My colleague from Macleod, being a medical doctor, knows that human health applies to human life no matter what age or form. Some people may try to indicate that some aspects of our population are more at risk than others, but the bill addresses human health in total. Its declaration and preamble states in part:

It is hereby declared that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canadians and that the primary purpose of this act is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention.

Sustainable development is an important part of any environmental bill.

Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to achieve sustainable development that is based on an ecologically efficient use of natural, social and economic resources and acknowledges the need to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in the making of all decisions by government and private entities;

That is something we firmly believe in. We have to take into effect the social and economic aspects of any piece of legislation as it goes forward. If we make it too restrictive, then we are going to lose some of the players in the game.

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation;

We have to remember these issues as we talk about the bill, what is and is not in it and the amendments that are brought forward. It is going to take us a while to get through them all. It gets a little complex as we try to bring in a bill that has some reason and some scope.

One aspect we are dealing with in this group of motions is the use of toxic substances. The government has consistently focused on managing releases of toxic substances and not their uses. Our proposals ensure that the bill is consistent with the relevant toxic management strategies incorporated in the UNCED's Agenda 21, keeping us in step with the rest of the world. This agenda is generally pursued by the international community in its risk reduction activities.

Amendments brought forward by some of the committee members alter this approach by expanding the scope of CEPA from its current focus on emissions to the use of toxic substances. There are 23,000 substances in use; 12 have been classed as toxic. These substances are going to be used. They need to be used. It is the control and keeping them under control and stopping the release that this bill has to focus on. It is not the use that is a cause for concern; it is the improper management and the release of these substances that cause the adverse effects.

Motions Nos. 1 and 13 deal with the use of toxic substances and address these concerns. Motion No. 1 proposes that lines 19 to 21 of the preamble be returned to the original text. That would take the bill back to where it started which was something we were quite comfortable with. The government and the Bloc have proposed motions similar to Motion No. 1 which effectively accomplish the same thing. We have general support to move in the same direction.

Government Motion No. 14 only partially addresses concerns regarding the management of toxic substances. Our Motion No. 13 is preferable to Motion No. 14 which is not adequate and is only a marginal improvement. It is critical that we do not consider use of toxic substances separately from the release of toxic substances as this derogates from the risk based principles that are intended to be the foundation of this bill.

It is going to be quite interesting as we go through all of this. Motions from three different parties which are worded somewhat differently could eventually work out to be the same thing. It is important how the groupings take place.

The other issue is inherent toxicity. Amendments put forward by the Reform Party and the government also address this issue. Inherent toxicity has been left undefined in this bill as a result of the committee amendments. If inherent toxicity is left undefined, it could lead to substances being proposed for virtual elimination without their going through the traditional risk assessment. Our proposals address this.

Our Motion No. 87 ensures that substances that have been determined to be toxic by risk assessment, not by the minister, can go to virtual elimination. Motion No. 87 ensures that the decision making is scientific rather than political. Government Motion No. 88 addresses the same concern. However its amendment does not go far enough.

I will end here because we will have other opportunities to speak as we go through this process. We have eight groupings so we can speak eight times to the issue.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident from the interventions by the Reform Party that it wants a weaker bill. It wants a bill that loses its original intent and mandate in a manner which makes it extremely weak.

The words used by the member for Lethbridge is also interesting. He talked about the players in the game and that we must be a leader. The question is in what?

Neither the member for Lethbridge nor his other Reform Party colleague referred to public health once. Their main concern is the quite evident preoccupation with the industrial side of this bill and not with its health side.

We might as well call a spade a spade and make it clear that Reform has been on the wrong tack with this bill from the word go. It has also supported in committee every attempt to weaken this bill as it is doing here in the House today.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister was quite right when she referred in her intervention to this bill being a reasonably strong bill. She went as far as to describe it in very positive terms. That description would only be valid if the amendments by the government at report stage are not carried. If they are, then this bill will be weak and it will not perform the intent that was expressed so well and so clearly by the government in 1995 when it replied to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “It's about our Health”.

In the limited time available I will try to address Motions Nos. 2, 14, 67 and 88.

Motion No. 2 would eliminate the words “to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent”. “The generation and use” are important words. We put them in at committee. Actually it was “to phase out the generation”. We thought in the long term that a bill whose aims are the prevention of pollution and the protection of public health should have an indication of that nature in the preamble. Therefore this amendment should be resisted.

Motion No. 14 is an amendment whereby in the administrative duties of the government the products of biotechnology would be deleted. It is very unfortunate that the government would see fit to present such a motion. It implies that the products of biotechnology should be the domain of just one department, namely the Department of Industry, as if biotechnology is a matter of economic concern alone. That is wrong. Biotechnology touches on a number of values that go far beyond the economic values and concerns of society. Therefore the deletion of the products of biotechnology from clause 2(1)(j) ought to be resisted.

I will move on to an item that has already been raised by others and quite understandably so, namely virtual elimination. We must be very clear in trying to convey to the public what it is all about.

When this bill came out of committee, as it now stands before us before any amendment, the matter of eliminating, so to say in vague terms, toxic substances would be the prerogative of the ministers. The ministers, as the bill reads right now, shall make regulations respecting allowable releases. It is left to the two responsible ministers, environment and health, to make that determination.

The amendment being proposed by the government says that there would have to be a precondition before this could take place. In other words an obstacle is set in the way of the two ministers. Namely the specification by the ministers of the level of quantification for each substance on this famous list called virtual elimination would be a precondition to the making of the regulation. This is a considerable weakening of the clause as it is presently in the bill and when it came from committee.

It is quite clear that we have yielded to pressures, to lobbyists. We have somehow decided to put forward an amendment, and it is most unfortunate that the government would have done that, that is watering down and weakening the handling of the very central issue in the bill of virtual elimination of toxic substances.

Virtual elimination is a central key issue which requires considerable debate and not just the few minutes that are available to us.

The idea that was conceived in committee of the ultimate reduction of toxic substances has disappeared. There is no clear requirement to continue as it is intended to ratchet down the limits of release. The proposed amendment will legitimize the continued use of toxic substances which is a very unfortunate development. Therefore, I would urge colleagues not to vote for this amendment.

Motion No. 88 deals with the question of inherent toxicity. This amendment is extremely difficult to explain in the course of this debate. Again it weakens the bill because it removes the possibility of having access to a faster track for the elimination of harmful substances. It is an amendment that ought to be rejected.

The amendment seriously weakens the work of the committee whose permanent members attempted very conscientiously to find ways of reinforcing the thrust of the bill with the main purpose of the bill in mind, namely that of preventing pollution and of protecting human health. We are dealing here with some very dangerous substances. We are dealing here with a process that requires some clear measures that aim at the long term elimination of substances that are harmful to human health and to the environment.

The committee has attempted to do that. However, a number of amendments in Group No. 1 would weaken that effort and the substance of the bill before us this afternoon.

For these reasons I urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to reject the major amendments in Group No. 1, and particularly the ones that I referred to in my brief presentation.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Hélène Alarie Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, which is now at report stage, proposes to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The bill addresses the following aspects: pollution prevention, toxic substances, air and water purity, pollution control and waste, environmental emergencies, biotechnology, federal government operations on federal and aboriginal land, administration and application of penalties, information gathering, guidelines and codes of practice, and finally, public participation.

This act may be full of good intentions, but it is equally full of imprecision.

It must be kept in mind that the study of Bill C-32 started back in the fall of 1998, and ran until April 1999. After 60 sittings, a total of 580 amendments had been submitted during the clause by clause examination of the bill. The committee adopted 160 of them. As a result, the bill is inconsistent in many regards.

The most critical point in this bill is, in my opinion, the lack of harmonization with the provinces. While the original version called for the federal government to act within the spirit of intergovernmental agreements, the government majority softened that requirement by adding the words “endeavour to” before the word “act”.

The Bloc Quebecois maintains that the federal government must always work within a framework of harmonization with the provinces, with a view to avoiding duplication and overlap of legislation and regulations.

Since Quebec has its own specific nature, we insist on being allowed to speak for ourselves when our interests are at stake. Despite the fact that, in theory, Bill C-32 acknowledges that the environment is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments, in practice it delegates no powers to the provinces.

The purpose of Bill C-32 is to enhance still further the federal government's preponderance as far as environmental protection is concerned. That is the major point on which amendments are required. Otherwise the situation will get worse instead of better.

On the subject of products of biotechnology, the bill establishes a federal safety net and the authority to make regulations for the safe and effective use of biotechnology for environmental purposes. Clauses 104 to 115 apply here.

What does it mean? Where are we in the vital matter of biotechnologies? Who is prepared to educate the public? In what area does the bill require products of biotechnology that meet international standards and are subject to recognized scientific rules? When will we deal with labelling? Who, in the government, will finally take the lead in this matter and not look at biotechnology only in terms of toxicity?

The weakness of clauses 104 to 115 and their approach to the subject of biotechnology is a bit confusing.

There is another aspect of the harmonization of this bill with the provincial governments I consider very important. It is a field of jurisdiction in which the Province of Quebec is at the forefront and needs no help the federal government. I am referring to the control of water, land and air pollution in agriculture.

Quebec pork producers complete the agri-environmental picture of their farms. Each farm is studied to determine its physical characteristics, level of pollution, production capacity and quantity of input so that the impact of the pork producers on their community is known quasi scientifically. It is easy therefore to correct discrepancies.

This picture will be extended to other farming activities. It is a procedure that is unique in North America and a real agri-environmental realization.

Farmers in Quebec are also required to produce an agri-environmental plan, which is a management tool or an integrated fertilization plan for farms. These plans are done by professionals or farmers who have taken courses and proper training. This is an example of making this community responsible, which has already proven effective.

For all these reasons, we have faith in our provincial government, which is a leader in environmental matters and must be given full latitude in areas under its jurisdiction.

In light of the amendments adopted in committee, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill at report stage and third reading.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

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.

Public Sector Pension Investment Board ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Service Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration of the disposal of proceedings on the said stages.