Madam Speaker, I will vote against the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, because it seems to me there is already an equivalency clause in the bill that allows every province to show that its legislation is equivalent to that of the federal government, in which case the federal act does not apply. To go further than that would only water down the legislation more than it already is, and heaven knows it is already rather weak.
I want to quickly go over the issues relating to this legislation. This act is being targeted, on the one hand, by people who want to water it down even more for the benefit of the provinces and, on the other hand, by groups representing the industry.
The other day, I mentioned about 12 of these groups. The major industry associations in Canada wrote long letters to the Canadian government. They said, among other things, that if this bill is passed as it stood after being reviewed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development:
We would have to shut down wood burning stoves and municipal incinerators in Newfoundland fishing villages.
The president of Alcan, Mr. Bougie, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister saying that should the bill be passed as it stood after being reviewed by the committee, it could force the closure of all aluminum smelters in Canada.
The fearmongering has been intense. I will quote from an article in the National Post of a few days ago by Mrs. Justyna Laurie-Lean, vice-president of the Mining Association of Canada. She says that the bill, as it is now, still leaves a lot of concerns.
And this in spite of the amendments that were passed, that were proposed and that benefit the industry.
And that is with a bill we were never particularly enthusiastic about. We don't see this as having won. We see this as having lost a lot of ground and regained an inch.
There is an article in the newspaper, not by Mrs. Lean, which says:
Industry's biggest complaint centres on language within the proposed legislation that sets out an explicit government obligation to protect the environment and human health. Earlier versions of the bill called on the government to endeavour to protect the environment.
In fact, this was one of the amendments that we proposed in committee. It said that, instead of merely endeavouring to protect the environment and human health, the government should have an obligation to protect the environment and human health. Industry is not pleased with this. It is still not satisfied after all the amendments that were proposed for its benefit and that reflect what it asked for, in spite of the act.
There is no conflict, as some of my colleagues have said, between the environment and business, the environment and the economy. Quite a few years ago, in 1975, the firm 3M started a process which they called “3P: pollution prevention pays”. They can show over the years that they reduced pollution from their plants by 771 tonnes of effluents, that they saved money and in fact added to their profit line by over $800 million U.S. The same is true of Volvo. The same is true of Anheuser-Busch. The same is true of United Technologies and of several firms across the globe. The same is true of the Baum industrial association in Germany. The same is true of The Natural Step in Sweden. The same is true of many big corporations in Canada and I agree that many of them, Noranda, Dow and others, have made great steps forward.
We do not take any quarrel with industry. It is very much to the contrary. At the same time, what we say is that this bill is essential for the protection of the environment and human health.
I will quote from a document which gives statistics on the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States and its record regarding toxics and toxic waste:
In March '99, the EPA released a series of reports on its successes in the fiscal year 1998. Enforcement is at near record highs: 226 new criminal cases and 411 civil cases were launched in 1998. $92.8 million U.S. in criminal fines and $91.8 million in civil penalties were assessed, plus $230 million in Superfund settlements. In addition, EPA reports that its enforcement actions have led to substantial pollution reductions.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to cite them.
Compare this to what is happening with our devolution. The federal government devolves to the provinces, which in turn devolve to industrial associations and others. When we cut back our budgets on environmental protection, the provinces cut back even more substantially their budgets.
In the report of the commissioner that my colleague from Jonquière cited, it is worth noting that in Quebec, which has 40% of all pulp and paper mills in Canada, totalling 61 mills, there were 12 mills deficient in 1995, 13 mills in 1996 and 20 mills in 1997. There was one prosecution. Corrective action was supposed to have been taken, yet Environment Canada was unable to provide us with any corrective plans.
The commissioner says that Environment Canada should exercise its enforcement authority where appropriate. He cites further that in regard to devolution to Saskatchewan and Alberta under the fisheries act, which is administered by the Department of the Environment, parliament has no information on the results achieved by the Saskatchewan and Alberta fisheries act administrative agreement. He further says that the CEPA annual reports required by this legislation, which we are talking about today, have not been deposited for two years.
What we need to do is beef up our legislation, not weaken it. What we need to do is beef up our regulations, not weaken them. I think this bill, with the amendments that have been presented, weaken an already weak bill. To we who believe very strongly in environmental protection, we felt that Bill C-32, when it reached the committee, was a compromise in itself. Now it has been further compromised and further diluted. The Bloc and others want to dilute it further.
I suggest that we need to reverse all of these amendments that will weaken the provisions of key elements of the law, such as inherent toxicity, the precautionary principle, virtual elimination and others that my colleagues have referred to. We need to strengthen the pollution prevention plan. We need to make the bill stronger, not weaker. If any country needs good environmental protection at this time, it is Canada. The EPA in the United States goes much further than Canada in the enforcement and regulation of toxics and toxic waste.
Canada devolves to industry and listens every time there is a threat of closure. We shake in our boots and we weaken our laws. We dilute it further when we pass it on to the provinces, which in turn pass it on to somebody else. The fox is in charge of the chicken coop.
I suggest to this House that we should defeat all of the amendments which will weaken the key provisions of this bill, especially those relating to inherent toxicity, virtual elimination, the precautionary principle and the dilution of the powers of both the ministers of the environment and health, as well as the federal government. I would be happy to support the bill if this situation was rectified, but, if not, I have very strong reservations.