Madam Speaker, in the few minutes that we have left, I would first like to address the precautionary principle, which is the issue in this group of amendments.
Frankly, I must admit there are reasons for the position taken by the government. In its response to the committee report, entitled “This is About Our Health”, the government clearly explained that it would introduce the precautionary principle according to the Rio definition. This definition includes the notion of cost effectiveness. This is what the government had decided to do.
At the same time, there is another way of looking at this amendment. When we got to committee, the member for Davenport introduced an amendment concerning the administrative duties section of the bill, which aimed at ignoring the notion of cost effectiveness.
I think it was a pity to reintroduce this notion of cost effectiveness. The committee had a chance to debate it fairly. All sides had a look at it, voted on it and the amendment presented by my colleague for Davenport was voted in. It was in the bill. There was no earthly reason that it should have been changed again. The real definition, admittedly, was part of the government's response, but it is not sacrosanct.
In several international instruments which the government has signed definitions do not include the cost effectiveness notion. In fact, in our oceans act the precautionary principle is written this way:
Whereas Canada promotes the wide application of the precautionary approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources in order to protect these resources and preserve the marine environment;
There is no notion there of cost effectiveness. This is a law of our own government.
It was a real pity that we lost a wonderful chance to improve on the Rio definition. That is what the environment and the protection of human health is about. There is an evolution happening. The concepts that we knew in 1992, which might have been the subject of a compromise in Rio, will not be there forever. If they evolve for the better, toward better protection of the environment and human health, then why not? Why go back in time? Why sacrifice a gain, something which is positive, that was gained within our committee?
In the last minutes that I have left, I would have liked to touch on an issue that was raised by several speakers from the Bloc Quebecois. They are using all the debates to blame the federal government. Everything goes well in Quebec and everything goes badly at the federal level. Everything that goes badly is the federal government's fault. The same old song.
I heard some speakers tell us why their laws were forward-looking, how everything was going well in Quebec. Well, I would like to remind them of a couple of things.
First of all, over the last two years, the environmental groups themselves have blamed the Quebec government for its failure in the environmental area. Very recently, the Quebec premier, a former environment minister, suspended the application of part of Quebec's environmental legislation, the Loi des impacts environnementaux, which is absolutely perfect. He suspended its application to have a Hydro Quebec power line built pursuant to an order in council. The issue was brought to court and Quebec's case was dismissed.
What did Quebec do? It passed a special law to continue building the line, even though the court had said it should abide by its own environmental legislation.
It is totally farfetched to say that there is disproportionate centralization on the part of the federal government. Canada is the most decentralized country in the world.
I want to remind Bloc Quebecois members that 24 federal regulations related to the Environmental Protection Act and the Fisheries Act have been transferred to the provinces, three of them to Quebec. In Quebec, those regulations cover 61 plants, more plants than all the others together.
The commissioner's report, which members of the Bloc Quebecois so abundantly quoted earlier, shows that, of those 61 plants, 20 1995, 20% were at fault in 1996 and fully a third of them did not comply in 1997. What did Quebec do? It sent warning letters. There was only one prosecution.
The federal government is not always at fault. I am quite ready to admit that, as democrats, we can sometimes condemn others, but there is a lot to be said here.
I would like to thank all members who worked so diligently on this bill, the officials of the ministry, the parliamentary secretary and others. All we want is to better the quality of life of the people we are here to serve. I have certain reservations about this bill. They are few in number; however, four or five are key.
I hope that somehow between now and the final passage of this bill we will find some wisdom together to rectify what we feel are the inherent flaws in this bill so that all of us can join together to vote for it. That would, by far, be my fondest wish.