Debates of May 27th, 1999

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to address the motions in Group No. 2. As hon. members can see, I have introduced 49 amendments in Group No. 2, for which I apologize.

This is a very important group. The government has much to say about co-operation with the provinces. It says all manner of things in various forums. It needs to do something to prove that there is some connection between its words and reality.

I and the members of the Bloc Quebecois feel that the words of this government have not rung true right from the start. As the member for Jonquière, as I said when I first spoke on Bill C-32, I wish to indicate how disappointed I was when we analyzed this bill in committee. That disappointment carries over to third reading.

In my opinion, this government is living in a bubble. This government is in a bubble that protects it from reality. What the parliamentary secretary has just said on behalf of her government is not accurate. She said that Canadians expect this government to play the lead role where the environment is concerned. That is not what we are hearing.

What we are hearing is that there need to be agreements between this government and the provincial governments in order to administer this act as well as possible. Where I come from, if something happens to the environment, it is the province that must act. In fact, the first level of government required to act is the municipality.

I do not understand why we have to have national standards. What does it mean to have national standards? It means having a global vision of an entity. It does not mean having the truth, it means working in co-operation with other levels of government in order to make enlightened decisions. It is not, as the parliamentary secretary said, a veto for the provinces. It is the opposite. It is a right to partnership between the federal government and the provinces.

I have heard all sorts of things since my arrival here nearly two years ago. The government claims to be in partnership with this or that. I have never seen the government try to operate this way.

We have just had a flagrant example with Bill C-78, which the government has just passed. Bill C-78 and the one before us today amount to the same time. This bill will enable the government to say to people “We are the big boss”. Where I come from, the big boss is the public, because we work co-operatively.

I am extremely disappointed, but not surprised, that the Reform Party wants the federal government to run everything.

I would like to quote something the environment commissioner said in the report he tabled this month. He noted that federal-provincial agreements on the environment were not perfect and needed to be improved, but they were an improvement over unilateral action by Ottawa in this area, given the benefits of eliminating overlap and the establishment of a single window.

This is the fact of the matter. This is why the Bloc wanted to have its amendments passed and put it into effect. I note that this government has plugged its ears well and that it wants nothing to do with the other levels of government.

I am very disappointed with the government's position, and this is why the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place with representatives of all parties and in order to facilitate debate on report stage of Bill C-32, I believe you would find consent for the following order. I move:

That during the report stage debate on Bill C-32, all report stage motions be deemed read by the Chair and duly moved and seconded.

And that all motions be deemed put to the House, a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred to the end of the said debate.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party will concur with the whip of the government on that point as long as all the Progressive Conservative amendments are voted on at the same time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

For clarification, is the hon. member for Fundy—Royal asking that the amendments that were defeated this morning be treated as not having been defeated and be placed on the list? Could he clarify that point for the House?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed that the motions that were defeated earlier this day when the questions were put to the House, be deemed to have been put in such a way that a division was required and the division was deferred until the conclusion of the report stage?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the proposal of the chief government whip. Is the proposal also agreed to?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

On behalf of all Chair occupants, I want to thank the members of the House for their co-operation in this regard.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and good human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

I would like to speak on the issue of children's health and the impact of pesticides and pollution on the lives of our children.

I was interested in the eco-summit which was held here two weeks ago. It was a very interesting, worthwhile and provocative event that was put on at the House of Commons to draw attention to environmental issues.

Entertainer Raffi opened the summit and I think everyone was expecting him to break into a song like Baby Beluga . However, he was there for a much more serious reason. He was there to talk about a child centred world and the importance of the starting place for absolutely any of our decisions being new life and the children who we have and are guarding for the future.

He talked about the radical idea of making each and every one of our decisions from the perspective of the child and the health and well-being of the child. He felt that all of our actions, legislations, laws and all the creativity that we have should be focused on children and geared toward children. As we all know, we have much to answer to our children.

I am sure all of us have had our children asking why the water is so dirty, why all the fish are dying, why there are no more rain forests, why half of their classmates have breathing problems and why some of them have asthma. They have all of these whys about the environment. They also want to know why we, the adults who are supposedly the guardians of this globe, are not protecting the environment.

Native people speak about the idea of making decisions for seven generations. Nothing should be put out there that has not been thought through for at least seven generations. I love the idea of using all of our collective wisdom to make decisions which will not bring shame, disgust or recriminations from our children, our children's children or our great-grandchildren's children, or even worse, that will not bring illness or death.

What a concept that we could be making decisions in the House, which is exactly where it all starts, that could bring illness to our own children and the children of our children. I do not think there is anything that quite gets me more in the gut and in the heart than contemplating that thought.

All of these questions bring about enormous shame and sorrow but they must obviously go much further than that. They cannot just stop with a sense of shame, sorrow and powerlessness. We cannot just turn off the radio at night when we hear David Suzuki speaking eloquently and with enormous detailed research about the fact that we are at the eleventh hour with the globe in terms of the health of our environment. We cannot just close that out. We have to listen to the people who are doing the work on the environment and we have to listen to the danger signs.

At the eco-summit Raffi talked about the fact that there is no baby born now on the globe who is free of the impact of toxic chemicals which just float around in our water, our food and our air. Pollution does not discriminate. It begins to work on tiny lungs as soon as they take their first breath. We know it even works on them while they are still in the mother's womb.

Wealth, power and influence in gated communities do not protect people against a polluted environment. We cannot protect ourselves in any way from this issue other than by doing something about it.

At this point I would like to look at some startling statistics which came out last week. They concern the impact of pesticide residues on Canadian produce, on the apples our children eat at the day cares and on all the food we are eating. Children have a much smaller system and they are more vulnerable in terms of the buildup of pesticides. The amount of pesticides left on fresh fruit and vegetables has grown in Canada. According to unpublished government statistics obtained through the Access to Information Act, pesticides have more than doubled since 1994.

Studies indicate that produce grown commercially in Canada now have pesticide residues at nearly the same rate as imported produce. If we have grown them ourselves or have purchased them at the local store we take some comfort in thinking that if we wash them everything will be all right. For some reason we are trying to deny the fact that we are not personally ingesting enormous amounts of pesticides. We seem to be able to let this problem build in our lives without addressing it head on.

The report by Eli Neidert and Glenn Havelock of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency dated November 6, 1998 states:

The evidence clearly indicates that both the contamination rates and violation rates for domestic and imported produce are moving closer together.

Studies show that nearly a quarter of Canadian produce randomly tested bears traces of pesticides, even after inedible skins are peeled off. Although the report states that just 1.2% of domestic produce showed residues at illegal levels, the violation rate is triple what it was at the beginning of the decade.

Kathryn Boothby, communications manager of the Pesticide Producers and Marketers' Crop Protection Institute of Canada, cautioned against becoming needlessly alarmed about pesticides, saying that consumers should take into account the well-documented health benefits of eating fresh fruits and vegetables.

After having read that, I had to ask myself what the spokesperson was saying. The good news is that an apple a day keeps the doctors away but the bad news is that pesticides will almost surely kill us at some point if we live long enough. I could not believe that she actually said that. If I would have had a phone nearby I would have called her for a reality check on what she was saying about the food we eat.

Julia Langer speaks well on that issue. She is a pesticide expert at the World Wildlife Fund Canada and a member of the federal government's Pest Management Advisory Council. She said that the trend toward the widespread findings are extremely disturbing. She also said that it should be a wake-up call to change pest management practices so we can move the trend in the opposite direction.

The chemical present in fresh Canadian and foreign grown produce includes carcinogens, suspected neurotoxins and compounds known to cross the placental barrier and affect growing fetuses. These also include long banned chemicals such as breakdown components of DDT and several others so dangerous that they merit a place on the international dirty dozen list. Although they are not registered for use in Canada, they are nevertheless legal in the food Canadians eat, as long as they are not present in quantities above 0.1 parts per million.

In closing, I will simply make an enormous plea for us to stop everything and try to get back to the basics. As Raffi said at the eco-summit the other night, let us think about our children. Let us think about the poisons going into our environment. Let us talk about a decent environment bill that is going to start reversing the pollution and the devastation that we have wrought on our globe. I will push for that at every turn in terms of the amendments that the New Democratic Party are putting forward to the CEPA bill.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the motions in this group, particularly those proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, would weaken national leadership, they would weaken national concerns and they would prevent national regulations from applying in Quebec. These motions would mean a step backward and ought to be defeated.

There are other amendments which represent a step backward because they will have a negative impact on public health. Take for instance inherent toxicity, about which we spent a lot of time in committee. Here the public health is threatened because the proposed amendment takes from the minister a needed measure to accelerate the process of preventing pollution or eliminating a substance from entering the environment. True, there is pollution prevention planning in the legislation but it is very weak. Actually it has virtually no teeth because the pollution prevention plans are not enforceable.

We are therefore very concerned about what is being proposed. In the words of someone who has worked as a consultant and as an environmental lawyer as well on this very legislation “This proposed amendment is very significant and would gut the bill of the significant direction taken in this clause toward inherent toxicity”. This is a very bad move in terms of protecting public health.

There is the issue of virtual elimination on which we also worked very hard in committee. The government came forward with an amendment which we were glad to work on but now at report stage we see that changes are being proposed. There is a shift in focus from achieving near zero pollution to a process which is unclear and vague, a process which gives no clear mandate to reach zero pollution. I am sad to say that the long term is being sacrificed in favour of the short term.

Then there is the issue of the precautionary principle. One of the many problems that the committee dealt with was the absence of a strong administrative duty on the part of the government to apply this principle. The precautionary approach means that we should not wait for damage to the environment or human health to occur before acting.

There are many definitions of the precautionary approach. The version chosen to appear in the preamble was unfortunately one of the weakest ones available because it would place a straitjacket by imposing cost effective considerations. We worked very hard in improving that.

The proposed version now of the precautionary principle is not the only one available. Canada and other nations have signed on to many other versions in environmental agreements involving fishery, biodiversity and ocean dumping. In fact the London Dumping Convention of 1972 as renewed in 1996 including Canada has a much stronger version without mentioning cost effectiveness. Therefore the idea of the pollution prevention and of the precautionary principle should not be distorted and burdened by the obstacles posed by cost effectiveness.

Another amendment that is in the category of undesirables is the one that came forward in relation to nutrients. This amendment comes like a bolt from the blue so to speak. It is brand new. It was not mentioned or proposed in committee. It was not proposed by any witness before the committee. It is hard to see why it has appeared at the eleventh hour of the debate on this bill.

The effect of the amendment if passed would be that the Minister of the Environment could no longer prevent pollution in water by certain nutrients. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food instead could say “I have the power to prevent pollution by nutrients in water”. Cabinet would then decide if the power of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would be sufficient and the Minister of the Environment, who has a strong mandate to protect the environment, would no longer have a role to play. This motion as well weakens the bill.

I have just elaborated on a few rather important amendments which if they were passed would transform this bill, I must say and with regret, from a weak law into a paper tiger. The net effect of these changes as they are being proposed in some of these groups particularly by the government will make Bill C-32 an exercise in distorted phrases. Perhaps they are skilfully crafted sentences made for the purpose of convincing the public in an almost Orwellian fashion in an attempt to create an impression of strength when in reality the emperor has no clothes.

If certain amendments of the kind I have touched upon are passed into law, a few lobbyists will prove to have been more powerful than the permanent members of the standing committee. I am referring to those who toiled on the subject of toxic substances for over five years.

If certain amendments of the kind I have described this morning are passed, the public and its health will be poorly protected from toxic substances. The meaning of pollution prevention will be seriously discredited. Unfortunately, I must also add that a key electoral promise will not have been kept.

Those of us who feel very strongly about this bill, are standing for a very simple and straightforward principle: that Canadians can have health protection at the same time as sound investments. There is no conflict between making into reality the fact that we can have at the same time a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

With that thought in mind, I will let the House know that when it comes to the vote on certain motions, it is my intention to vote with regret against my government. I think the motivation is very clear. It is one that puts the public health ahead of investments. It is one that motivates for the reduction of health costs in the long term.

It is one that is also attempting to bring closer the commitments we made to the Canadian public in two electoral campaigns, namely that we would not just deal with the releases into the environment of toxic substances; we went much further in our commitment and said that we would deal with the gradual elimination of the use of toxic substances. In that respect, this bill is a far cry from what we promised in the 1993 campaign. I am referring to page 66 of the red book where it is very clearly explained and set out.

I think what unites us in this room today is a different interpretation of what it means to fight for the public interest. I imagine that all my colleagues will agree with me that this is what is motivating us. The approach I am developing may be one with a particular emphasis on the long term, with a particular emphasis on giving precedence to the public health with the strong belief that Canadians can all have in this very fortunate country health protection and sound investments without having to sacrifice one for the other.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-32 and this group of amendments following the comments by the member for Davenport. He indicated how unhappy he is with the bill and that he will even be voting against his own government.

The process we have gone through to date has been a very lengthy one. Many members have commented on that. This group of amendments has almost 70 amendments with 16 of the amendments coming from the government. We have had 59 meetings on this bill. The bill was at committee for a year. A total of 560 amendments have come forward on this bill. Even at report stage when it comes back to the House the government is still making amendments. It makes us wonder how much effort went into the original drafting of the bill if at this point in the process we are still dealing with government amendments and members of the government are still unhappy with it.

There are two main issues being dealt with in these amendments. Most of the amendments were brought forward by the member for Jonquière who spoke previously and deal with provincial sovereignty. It is not surprising since she is a member of a separatist party.

The other issue is the environment minister is dealing with the time period during which the minister offers to consult with affected stakeholders. This was something we dealt with at committee to some degree, to put some time limitations on some of the decisions so that the actions can move forward in a reasonable manner, and that people involved have a chance to be consulted and work together.

The issue of provincial sovereignty is of course a dear one to Reformers and to our party. In many ways the Reform Party can find its roots in this issue. The party began in the late 1980s born out of frustration with Ottawa. Canadians frustrated with being ignored by the federal government decided that the time was right to start a party that was dedicated to the equality of all provinces, a party that would favour no province over the other.

One of the founding principles of the party affirmed Reform's commitment to Canada as one nation indivisible, and to our vision of Canada as a balanced federation of equal provinces and citizens. The balance we speak of even at that level we have to extend to environmental issues because it is a very precise balance that needs to be created between government regulation, industry and Canadians. If we go too hard one way or the other, that balance is disrupted and it will harm the environment. It is key that we continue to seek the balance we need to create a better environment for all of us.

This balanced federation would take away the arsenal of centralizing powers that lie in the hands of the cabinet and redistribute legislative authority to the level of government that is able to govern most effectively in each area. We feel the federal government has become too intrusive in provincial affairs. The long arm of the federal government stretches across the country and leaves no citizen untouched.

Federal transfer cuts to health and education programs drastically affect Canadians all across the country. Outrageous tax rates discriminate against single income families and they chase away our best and brightest graduates and drive down our productivity. If that is not enough, projects like the millennium scholarship fund even further antagonize the provinces. It is things like this that have earned Ottawa the enmity of the provinces.

The Bloc is a fruit of that situation. That political party from Quebec has made it known that it favours the outright decentralization of nearly every federal responsibility. The Bloc opposes any kind of federal government intervention in the provinces. Having said that, we support decentralizing government as well but we believe that the amendments presented here today go too far.

We recognize that in a country as vast and diverse as Canada there is a need for the federal government to establish and maintain national standards in areas of clear federal jurisdiction. Our blue book says that the Reform Party supports a rationalization of federal and provincial environmental laws and the development of regional and national environmental standards where appropriate.

We believe that the federal government has a role to play in these issues. Because the Constitution does not explicitly assign environmental jurisdiction to either federal or provincial governments, this has been a source of friction in the past. However recent developments have gone a long way in clarifying this constitutional vagueness.

In the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v Hydro Quebec, the court ruled unanimously that the protection of the environment was a constitutionally valid criminal law objective which is a clear jurisdiction of the federal government. However, because environmental issues transcend boundaries, the federal government must not use this decision as a carte blanche to ride roughshod over the provinces.

Federal-provincial co-operation such as the kind proposed under the 1998 harmonization accord is essential to ensure that the health and well-being of Canadians come first. Again it comes down to balance, balancing the harmonization accord. In order for it to work there has to be proper balance between the federal and provincial governments.

The Reform Party is an enthusiastic supporter of provincial consultation, but the amendments put forward by the Bloc go beyond what is reasonable. The Bloc no doubt believes that the federal government is overstepping its jurisdictional boundaries in the administration and application of the bill. Requiring the minister to obtain the consent of the provinces at every turn will render the bill unworkable. We feel it has gone too far and we need to get back to a point where consultation with the provinces is meaningful and there will be some clear results.

It is clear that the provinces must be involved in the process as Environment Canada simply does not have the capability to take full responsibility for the implementation of the act. This is something that came forward during the debate. Environment Canada has fallen down substantially and has not directed the proper resources to enforcement. This is something that needs to be addressed and put back into its priorities. That has been the situation this week in the cause for environmental protection.

Some members on the other side are always eagerly ready to accuse me and my colleagues within the Reform Party of having no regard for the well-being of the environment. This is simply not true.

These are the same members who supported the cutbacks in the past few budgets presented by the finance minister. These members have supported the budgets in which these cutbacks were implemented.

Are they not supporting the government that was condemned by the environment commissioner just this week for putting the health of Canadians at risk by not properly managing toxic substances? Are they not supporting the government that has refused to introduce endangered species legislation?

I could continue, but suffice to say it is not the Reform Party these members should be concerned about but the Liberal Party. As was expressed previously by another member, their problem lies within their own party.

I assure the House that Reform has a very clear position on the enforcement of environmental protection. Our blue book policy clearly supports the principle that the polluter should pay for its pollution controls, that this be stringently enforced in an unbiased manner, and that the penalties be severe enough so polluters will not consider them a licence to pollute. We also support fines and jail sentences for officers and executives of companies that violate environmental laws.

However it is always better to use the carrot over the stick. Although the law must have the capacity to enforce its regulations, it will be more effective if it can deter individuals from breaking the law in the first place. Co-operation will always accomplish more than confrontation.

I will briefly discuss the Group No. 2 amendments brought forward by the minister. In the preamble to Bill C-32 the government recognizes the importance of working together with the provinces, territories and aboriginal groups to achieve the highest level of environmental quality for all Canadians and ultimately to contribute to sustainable development.

Throughout the bill the federal government shows its respect for the provinces, territories and aboriginal groups by making offers to consult. The bill creates advisory committees made up of representatives from these affected groups.

We as a party put forward one amendment. The representatives of the provinces instead of being picked by the minister should be appointed by the provinces. We feel that would give a balance to the process and bring in some more expertise to handle the issue.

Public consultation is critical to the legitimacy of the bill. Our party is founded on the principle of grassroots participation. Ensuring the grassroots have an opportunity to influence public policy is very important. For too long grassroots have been trampled as one government after another ignored their concerns. The bill hinges on the proper balance.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the Group No. 2 amendments to Bill C-32. My comments will not be all that long. I want to talk about the concept that predominates a number of the amendments which have been put forward primarily by the Bloc and by the government.

This section captures the Bloc position that the ministers must get provincial approval before making any regulations or issuing any guidelines throughout the act. The government also has a few amendments in this section but they deal predominately with the offer to consult being open to the provinces for 60 days before the government must act, which would bring closure to the offer.

We do not always get agreement with the provinces to act so the federal government must retain the powers to act in order to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. Essentially that is the origin of it.

I understand where my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is actually coming from. It is that the federal government fails to recognize on a routine basis that in order to get anything implemented within this great country ultimately we need the provinces on side. At the end of the day they are usually the governing body which has to implement a number of the decisions that take place with respect to the federal government.

The concern the Bloc has put forward is indeed justified. I would like to cite two examples of the origin of this concern. We all remember the draconian cuts to the Canada health and social transfer that took place by the federal government to pay for health care, education and social assistance.

These unprecedented cuts to our priority programs were done without any consultation, without any input from the provinces. The provinces did not have the opportunity to say that they would pay a very severe price and, more important, that the citizens who live in the provinces would pay a very severe price if these actions were taken. The provinces did not have any input into the actions of the federal government.

I trust the House remembers the debate which led up to the Kyoto protocol in December 1997. In that situation all 10 provinces met essentially for the first time to coalesce and build a position with respect to what target and timelines they should establish and agree to at the Kyoto protocol.

The provinces stepped forward and gave a unified position on November 12, 1997. The following morning we read in the Globe and Mail that what was agreed to the previous night was not necessarily the position the federal government when it goes to Kyoto. This slapped the provinces square in the face. Then when the government went to Kyoto the final position it adopted was drastically different from what it had agreed to on November 12 in Regina, Saskatchewan.

If Bloc Quebecois members are concerned that the federal government will not consult their provincial partners in making these decisions, if they are paranoid that the federal government will take unilateral positions in this regard, I think that paranoia is justified.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that although the responsibility for the environment is that of federal and provincial jurisdictions, we must make no mistake about it. The federal government needs to take the leadership role in that regard.

The intent in terms of what the Bloc has proposed, and I think the government has come to a reasonable compromise on this point as well, is that the government must offer to consult. It must seek input for the provinces to advise the government in terms of what direction it may want to take in an environmental intervention.

There was a lot of discussion on the part of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I think it is a very prudent situation. The offer to consult was left open for 60 days. The door is wide open for 60 days. Once talks begin that would naturally be continued. If the provinces do not take the federal government up on the offer over a two month period on a major environmental intervention, the federal government has the responsibility to show leadership.

We will not support the Bloc's amendments in that regard only because we think the government has a better direction. The Bloc tabled these amendments and we are discussing them in the House. Whether it is environmental issues or the Canada health and social transfer, the government fails to realize that our country is a partnership, a confederation of all provinces. The provinces have a valuable role in implementing our laws. They deserve to have their rightful place at the table and to give input.

The spirit of the Bloc's amendments are dead-on and justified. However, the government in this circumstance has ensured that it must offer to consult with its provincial partners and keep it open for a period of 60 days. If the provinces do not engage in it ultimately the federal government will have to take the leadership role it rightfully must have.

We will be participating further in the debate as we deal with the other amendments.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

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.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-32.

First of all, this tactic by the Liberal government looks to me like another move towards excessive centralization. The Liberals' approach is to do what they said they would in the September 1997 throne speech. They are relentlessly interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In so doing, they are revealing their incompetence when it comes to the national environment.

Let us take a brief look at the history of this bill, which started out as Bill C-77, died on the Order Paper during the Liberals' first term of office, and returned in 1998 as Bill C-32.

This is a bill that was not too bad originally but that turned into a disaster went it was referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The bill was studied over the course of 60 sittings, a precedent in the history of parliament. During the clause by clause study, 580 amendments were introduced.

The committee passed 160 of them. Had it passed constructive amendments, those consistent with the Canadian Constitution, Canada's Constitution, their efforts could have been called productive. But all these amendments and efforts produced was a completely unrealistic bill full of holes.

I have no idea where the Liberals get their concept of environment. Is it a virtual environment? One thing is sure, and that is that it is difficult to enforce it in real life in Quebec and in Canada.

The government wants harmonization with the provinces. Under the initial version of Bill C-32, the government was going to act. The word act implies action and taking decisions. When we got to committee, the Liberals said they were unable to act, but would make an effort to do so.

I am extremely worried when I see this government wanting to make an effort to do something to harmonize with the provinces. I have a very vivid recollection of the sad business of the social union. The Canadian government made an effort to reach agreement with the ten provinces.

We know what happened: the coalition fell apart, only Quebec stood its ground. The same thing is happening now with Bill C-32.

The government found another way of delaying things in that it now wants to create an advisory committee. Again I have to express my concern in that regard. If we look at this government's way of consulting, I sometimes wonder if it even takes the time to read the briefing notes. We only have to look at what happened with regard to agriculture.

From September to December, all the interested parties were heard in preparation for the upcoming WTO negotiations. I do not know if there is a communication problem between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade, but the whole process was started again from scratch. They have trouble reading and understanding.

When the government talks about establishing a national advisory committee, it scares me. Let us take a closer look at what this committee will do. It will advise the two federal ministers on regulations to be made, on the management of toxic substances and on other matters of mutual interest.

The provinces will advise the federal minister—listen carefully—through the national advisory committee. A tradition exists, but, once again, it has been broken by this government. As we saw in the case of the millennium scholarship fund, the government wants to designate public servants or someone from the private sector to negotiate with elected representatives.

Usually in politics, regardless of the level, negotiations take place among elected officials. They speak to each other. But this government has a way of setting up new levels. It has a hard time understanding. Its operations are so complex and complicated we can understand that it is establishing another committee.

With this committee, then, this government will have another tool with which to totally ignore Quebec and provincial responsibility for the environment.

Pollution prevention becomes a national objective. The new legislation also creates a national centre. The farther we go in Bill C-32 the more we see the word national, and the more we see provincial responsibilities shrink. This is why the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-32 and asks the government if it really wants a partnership.

The representatives of this government have a hard time consulting, listening and negotiating. They do not know the meaning of partnership. They know it will only be pseudo partnership. But the truth is this is a centralizing government, that ceaselessly meddles in provincial jurisdictions, whether it be the environment, education or health. Since this government's return to office, that is since the 1997 election, all its actions have focused on centralizing, have served to trample on the provinces.

This is an arrogant government. It ignores the reality. It has difficulty reading and understanding the Canadian Constitution. I am at times tempted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give the Liberals a copy of the Canadian Constitution so they may truly see which areas are under provincial jurisdiction and which are under federal.

I want to make it clear that my colleagues and I will hound this government so that it understands Bill C-32 is unacceptable and constitutes another intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. We will do everything to defend this jurisdiction, Quebec and the environment.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 12 I rose in the House to address the first group of amendments at report stage of Bill C-32. At that time I said that not only were we dealing with a set of amendments but we were dealing with a fundamental decision on the direction which we as parliamentarians will take the country with regard to environmental health and protection.

As parliamentarians we are entrusted to make decisions that affect the health and well-being of Canadians. We as parliamentarians must protect the health and well-being of Canadians.

I emphasize to the House that Bill C-32 is an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. The primary function of the bill is to use pollution prevention measures to protect the environment and human health. This is seen as a way of contributing to sustainable development and should not be confused as a sustainable development bill.

Pollution prevention is a stated policy of the government. There were a few small changes made in committee to encourage the practice of pollution prevention approaches. However, certain amendments before the House would result in shifting the bill away from a pollution prevention approach, for example the amendments that would add cost effective to the definition of precautionary principle.

The bill currently reads in the administrative duties section that the Government of Canada shall exercise its powers in a manner that protects the environment and human health and shall apply the precautionary principle that in threats of serious or irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation and promote and reinforce enforceable pollution prevention approaches.

The new amendment would change this section to include cost effective measures to prevent pollution. This weakens the bill in encouraging effective pollution prevention. It provides more hurdles to be overcome in order to move on measures to protect the environment and human health, and it is redundant.

The federal regulatory process management standards compliance guidelines clearly demand that regulatory protection occurs at low cost to both the private sector and the government. The regulatory development process each department undergoes must include a cost benefit analysis to demonstrate that regulatory benefits are greater than their cost.

A business impact test or equivalent analysis must be undertaken to assess the effect of the regulatory proposal on Canadian business. This amendment is redundant and it is unnecessary for cost effective to be inserted into the definition of the precautionary principle.

Even though business and industry have the assurance of a cost benefit analysis and the business impact test through the regulatory process guidelines of treasury board, certain individual lobbyists have mounted an unprecedented assault against the bill. As my hon. colleague has already mentioned, a number of very worthy and innovative companies in Canada and across the globe are doing very well with progressive environmental management systems.

One of the most important arguments industrial lobbyists seem to be putting forward is that this is an internationally accepted version of the precautionary principle and that it should include cost effectiveness. This is not true. There is no right or wrong definition of the precautionary principle. In fact there is no definition at all. Instead there are many articulations of the principle. Because it is an evolving concept it is an approach and therefore not static or rigid.

It should also be said that sovereign governments should be free to articulate the precautionary principle as strongly as they like. The precautionary principle emerged in Germany and was translated as a precaution or foresight principle. It was enunciated as early as 1976 by the federal Government of Germany.

Environmental policy is not fully accomplished by warding off imminent hazards and the elimination of the damage that has occurred. Precautionary environmental policy requires that natural resources are protected and that demands on them are made with care.

In 1991 the parties to the London dumping convention, and Canada was one of them, produced a resolution entitled “The Application of a Precautionary Approach”. Environmental protection was within the framework of the London dumping convention. It read that the London dumping convention shall:

—be guided by a precautionary approach to environmental protection whereby appropriate preventive measures are taken when there is reason to believe that substances or energy introduced in the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects.

There are many examples that the federal government has undertaken that act in a precautionary way which does not have to include cost effectiveness. I inform the House that the Nova Scotia environment act is the first statute in Canada to expressly adopt the precautionary principle. Section 2(b)(ii) states:

The precautionary principle will be used in decision making so that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

I note that Nova Scotia does not include cost effective in its definition.

Most appalling was that I was told by a group of industrial lobbyists that given the amount of change made in committee the focus of the bill had become unacceptable to them because the bill called upon the government to protect the environment and human health.

I thought my ears had betrayed me, but, as my hon. and distinguished colleague just pointed out, the National Post ran an article in which it said that industry's biggest complaint centred on language within the proposed legislation that set 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.

These people do not speak for business in Canada. They speak for a small minority of Canadians. They certainly do not speak for the public interest. We are not dealing with merely a set of amendments before the House but rather a fundamental direction of how we will manage environmental toxins and how we will protect the health of Canadians.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will expand on what my hon. colleague said earlier about children's health and how crucial it is for us to take the responsibility as parliamentarians to make sure the environment and our health are the highest priorities.

We cannot sleep at night and wake up in the morning without giving thanks to what was given to us, the gifts of the Creator such as our children and grandchildren. For us to hold the title of noble ancestors we need generations that will follow us. If we make mistakes now and do not clean up our act we will not be noble ancestors. We will be like dinosaurs.

Future generations might try to find some fossil fuel in our humble organisms some ions into the future. In the meantime our job is to take care of our future, our children and our health.

I must highlight the comments of hon. members in the Bloc who put a spotlight on jurisdictional issues in the environment. They were quick to look at the rights of the provincial jurisdictions and to have first right opportunities, but we have to take responsibility for the entire nation of Canada. We cannot do it in a balkanized situation or look at it individually.

We have many good examples coming from the province of Quebec and from other provinces, but equally there are bad examples coming from certain provinces. I would highlight the province of Ontario, in which the national capital is located. The present provincial government has been a guiding light in proving what can go wrong with provincial responsibilities on environment.

The issue of environmental jurisdictions has not been clarified under the Constitution. The constitutional responsibilities of environment are assumed under peace, order and good government, under the concept of governing the country. Under the good government concept environment is a responsibility, but the provinces are quick to jump. The resource transfer act has also devolved environmental responsibility with the resources of the country.

The issue of the environment in the Constitution requires evolution. We will have to address it at some point in time. We need a strong national position on the protection of the environment. This is where CEPA plays a major role. We need federal and national measures. We need standards and enforcement measures which protect the future of the country and future generations.

As part of the ongoing saga of the Liberal cabinet and its leaders and its ministers, one of the guiding lights has been the harmonization in making agreements with the provinces to deal with environmental issues. However industry and business representatives wanted one-stop shopping. They wanted to go to Walmart to purchase all their pharmaceuticals, dry goods, a McDonald's burger, food, shoes and a new jacket under one roof.

Unfortunately that is not the way federalism has worked in the history of the country. We respect federal and provincial jurisdictions and give duly required applications, assessments and reviews under certain jurisdictions.

The industry wants one-stop shopping and to accommodate this the CCME, of which the environment minister is the lead minister, created the harmonization accord to look at overlaps which deal with environmental regulations.

Just this past week Mr. Emmett, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, stated that the harmonization initiatives were well intended but were not working. Nobody is implementing these issues. Nobody is looking at what overlaps need to be addressed.

The witnesses the committee heard from indicated that there were major gaps among municipal, provincial and federal governments with regard to environmental responsibilities. One example to get the harmonization accord going was to get federal-provincial committees in place to design management agreements. They were never established. The actions suggested by the finance minister and the Prime Minister in press releases were all well and good but were nothing but intentions.

The program review by the Liberal government and the finance minister gutted environmental departments. Provincial governments have been affected by transfer payment cuts by the federal government, which resulted in further cuts affecting environmental departments at the provincial level. The federal cuts and provincial cuts are diminishing the environmental protection of the country as a whole. This has to be addressed immediately.

The commissioner confirmed our committee findings last year that the harmonization accord must not go forward without additional resources and a clear goal. It cannot be done for fiscal responsibilities.

Part of the fiscal measures have come about under CEPA. The government and the minister proposed in the draft of the precautionary principle that cost effective measures would play a major role. When looking at the protection of our environment we have to be cost conscious.

This issue was deleted by committee process, that under the precautionary principle if there is a lack of scientific evidence, that measures will be taken to protect our environment and our health. I guess under industry's lobby and highlighting the Reform Party as well, the Liberal cabinet has condoned amendments to bring back cost effective when taking measures to protect our environment and our health. That is totally contrary to the essence of the title of the bill. It is totally contrary to what Canadians expect as the government's responsibility. This is the time for us to prevent pollution, not to control and manage pollution. This is the time to prevent pollution.

The lack of enforcement is the other issue. This will come into play in future budgets. I want all Canadians to realize that there is an existing CEPA. There is a Canadian Environmental Protection Act in place and in effect as we speak.

Bill C-32 is the new bill. Under this new bill there are additional responsibilities for enforcement officers. There are additional responsibilities for enforcement. There are additional responsibilities in tracking and listing the toxic substances of this country. All these additional responsibilities are added to the environment minister's department but there are no new resources given for enforcement.

Well and fine, the government says it has $40 million to review the assessment of 23,000 toxic substances under the lists, but that is just doing the homework. That is just filling in the lists and putting them in filing cabinets in the right place where they should be. To enforce this on industries, on communities and make sure that the polluters are abiding by these laws there are no new additional resources.

There are new responsibilities but no resources. The whole guiding light of the minister has been on finances. In saying program review, it should have been financial review. Programs should have a special review in terms of what the ability, the service and the intention of each department is. Inevitably it has been a financial review to find out in which departments the government can make cutbacks to come out of the deficit and go toward a surplus situation.

I want to highlight as well that provincial responsibilities have not been followed through especially in Ontario. The Harris provincial government has proven that under its own program review. It has made cutbacks in its inspections and in its environmental assessments.

At one time we said that the industrial revolution really capitalized under the United States and Canada was a pristine, clean and environmentally conscious country. Now we hear that Ontario is running first, second and third, running for first place as the highest polluter in North America. That is a sad situation.

We must look in our own backyard. We cannot take our hinterland, our wilderness, our wildlife, our ecosystem, our biodiversity and our children's health for granted. We must work at what we do today. We must clean up our house, throw away our garbage, respect the food we eat, the water we drink and respect all the good things that are given to us. If we have disrespect, that disrespect will come around and it is what we will end up with. It may not affect us because our life cycle is a lot shorter, but the children to come have a future to look forward to and that is our responsibility.

In some provinces the financial responsibilities have certainly been backfilled in terms of housing and environmental responsibilities and highway repairs. In these responsibilities there has been an effort in some provinces and territories but there are bad apples to be taken care of.

It is a federal responsibility to ensure that all Canadians are protected under CEPA.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill under consitderation today is part of a continuum. Tirelessly, unrelentingly, this government pursues the same two objectives with each bill it introduces: first of all, nibbling away at the constitutional powers of the provinces, and second, making money.

Bill C-32 is a wonderful illustration and demonstration, as if one were needed, of this dual obsessive propensity of the Liberals to make political hay by centralizing within their hands as much power and money as possible, with an absolute disdain for the interests of the people.

I will start by speaking of the intrusion into the constitutional powers of the provinces.

Everyone knows that the environment is a shared federal and provincial jurisdiction. Starting right with the preamble to the bill, the division of powers relating to the environment is as follows: Ottawa has the power to decide, the provinces the power to implement. Am I exaggerating? Let the hon. members listen to the following. This is taken from the preamble:

Whereas the Government of Canada will continue to demonstrate national leadership in establishing environmental standards—

Here we go again with the same old Trojan Horse of national standards.

Members are still not convinced? Let us continue, with clause 2, which reads “the federal government must endeavour”—I repeat, endeavour—“to act in cooperation with governments to protect the environment”. Endeavour, not act, just try to act. We can trust the government not to go out of its way to endeavour to co-operate with the provinces. We want to get rid of this too convenient term, endeavour.

These two examples illustrate the federal government's firm resolve to confine the provinces to the humble role of carrying out its orders.

My second point is that the bill will be used to increase government revenues, at the expense of the public interest.

To illustrate my point, I will now read clause 185:

(1) No person shall import, export or convey in transit a hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material, or prescribed non-hazardous waste for final disposal, except a ) after notifying the Minister and paying the prescribed fee;

Who will pay the prescribed fee? The Canadian company that imports the waste to process it.

Do not tell us that it is appropriate, for reasons of safety, to raise barriers against the transborder movement of hazardous waste in Canada, and that it is the reason for this provision. The industry that processes the waste is an important factor. It plays a critical role in the protection of the environment.

Obviously, the survival of the industry depends on the volume of waste it processes. The efficiency and performance of the Sablex plant, in Blainville, not to mention the attention it pays to safety, are recognized worldwide by those concerned. This company processes and must process waste from the United States to ensure its profitability. Its profitability will be jeopardized if it must add fees paid at the border to its other charges.

Increasing the financial burden borne by the hazardous waste industry will obviously lead to an increase in the rates the industry charges its customers. Higher rates mean a higher risk certain unscrupulous businesses that generate this kind of waste will avoid having them processed by dumping them God knows where.

Therefore fees on waste imported for processing is working against the environment. It is unconscionable and makes no sense to find such a provision in a bill on, precisely, environmental protection.

One could understand that fees be levied on waste bound, let us say, for a province where the movement of these substances is not governed by legislation—I do not even know if such a province exists—which would make it desirable to curtail their importation. But this is certainly not the case in Quebec where we have such legislation.

Our amendment to clause 185 therefore does not seek to eliminate these fees, but to exempt from them these substances bound for a province where such legislation exists. The amendment reads as follows:

(1.1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, exempt from the application of subsection (1)—

That is exempt from the fees.

—any person who imports into, exports to or conveys in transit to a province substances described in subsection (1) where an Act of the legislature of the province is in force that governs the movement of such substances—

I have no doubt my colleagues from every party recognize the advisability of the amendment introduced by my colleague for Jonquière, our party's environment critic.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking about Bill C-32, which deals with protection of the environment.

When I speak of the environment, I always think of the aboriginal saying that we do not inherit the planet from our parents, but rather we borrow it from our children. Any discussion of the environment and its protection is an attempt to create links with others, not just today but in the future as well. The harm we do to the planet now will have repercussions during our children's lives. I think it is always important to keep this in mind.

Governments can come up with as many wonderful bills as they want to protect it, but they must always start with individual citizens. There must be good public awareness and education regarding protection of the environment.

There are very specific examples in my riding, including the zone known as ZIP. Many people from the community and from various sectors have joined forces to clean up a tiny river. This is just one example, but it gives me great hope to know that, although this river was polluted in the past, I may one day be able to swim in it, thanks to the efforts of these individuals. Five years ago, this would have been completely unthinkable, and today I can look forward to this area in my riding being cleaned up.

I have begun on a very positive and enthusiastic note, but there is a long way to go. When I look at everything going on in the world today with regard to the environment, I think our planet is sick and we must continue to work hard to set environmental rules that will help us protect the environment.

We hear more and more about the globalization of economies, a subject I am very interested in. Businesses and large corporations that have to decide in which country they will locate are often attracted by tax benefits. However, we have to look at the environmental benefits that some countries might offer large corporations. For short term gains and for job creation, some governments in the world could be tempted to relax their environmental regulations, and if there is one area where globalization already exists, it is certainly the environment.

The members who spoke this morning are all well intentioned and they probably agree with what I just said about protecting the environment. The reason I am speaking to Bill C-32 today is to discuss the approach we will use to protect the environment.

I was a little bit surprised today to hear members, even on the government side, express concern about this bill not being tough enough. I find it interesting. As I said earlier, it is always a challenge, with regard to the environment, to reconcile economic interests with environmental interests, in other words, to try to have a long term vision.

I will now try to summarize Bill C-32. With this bill, pollution prevention will become a national objective. This bill replaces the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It contains provisions to implement pollution prevention, new procedures for the investigation and assessment of substances and new requirements with respect to substances that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health have determined to be toxic.

The list of these substances is very extensive. The bill provides new powers for investigators and new mechanisms to deal with offences. It also specifies criteria for courts to consider for sentencing.

In addition, like the provinces and territories, aboriginal governments are provided the right of representation on the national advisory committee. And therein lies the problem.

Environment is said to be a federal-provincial matter. We are used to rise in this House to decry the behaviour of the current federal government, which wants to keep all the powers for itself and leave the provinces only with a advisory role.

To want to protect human health, to want to protect the environment is quite worthy. But today, I am opposed to the way the government wants to proceed. And this is why the Bloc Quebecois had to put some amendments forward.

Earlier, I gave very concrete examples of what some of my constituents did to set up community projects in order to protect the environment. Environmental protection starts at the grassroots level to hopefully reach the highest levels of government.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, believe that the governments closest to the people are in the best position to make environmental regulations that meet the needs of the citizens. I think this is true. The closer one is to the people, the better one can meet their needs. This only makes sense.

I regret that, in this bill, the government is ignoring the provinces, as in many other pieces of legislation. Once again, there is the temptation to centralize power in this country. Then they wonder why political parties or individuals in Quebec, or even elsewhere in Canada, are anxious for independence. These are challenges here to which we must respond.

The Bloc Quebecois amendments introduced by my hon. colleague for Jonquière, whose riding next to mine, propose deletion of the part of the preamble which sets out national environmental standards and national codes of practice relating to ecosystems and environmental quality. Since the environment is not a solely federal jurisdiction, this is unacceptable to us.

We also wish to delete the references in the preamble to the presence of toxic substances, which is treated as a matter of national interest. Once again, the federal government is looking for an excuse to meddle in the environment from coast to coast.

We are therefore calling upon the government to amend the preamble so that Quebec may speak for itself internationally when its interests are at stake. This amendment fits in with Quebec's determination to speak for itself internationally when its interests are at stake, particularly in the areas of culture, education, health and the environment.

Among the amendments proposed for paragraph 2(1)( d ), we wish to delete the words endeavour to in reference to the federal government's acting in co-operation with the provinces. This strikes me as a strange agreement, when the federal is described as having to endeavour to do something. This is a somewhat relative term. I believe everyone has his own definition of how much effort this entails.

Having regularly witnessed the federal government's behaviour, I wonder how much effort this government will put into endeavouring to co-operate with the provinces. Will mere consultations be considered an appropriate effort? I doubt it.

We are asking the government to delete the provision in clause 2(1)( g ) on the establishment of nationally consistent standards of environmental quality, because such standards adversely affect our specificity.

In the case of clause 2(1)( l ), we are proposing that the term endeavour be deleted, again to make sure the federal government will act in the spirit of the intergovernmental agreements reached with the provinces regarding the environment.

This amendment would not leave any possibility for this government to shirk its responsibility.

I could go on and on, but I think and hope that all the members of this House share the same goal, which is to set adequate rules to protect the environment.

The Bloc Quebecois' opposition today, expressed through constructive additions and amendments, is simply about how the environmental reality will be dealt with through consultations and committees, in which the provinces, which are closer to the public, will have their say, being fully aware of what is really going on.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the report stage debate on Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

This bill is a clear example of this federal government's contempt for the Canadian federal system. If we look at the respective responsibilities set out in the Constitution with regard to environmental matters, the federal government has chosen to ignore provincial responsibilities and, ironically enough, it is Quebec sovereignists who are forced to take a stand and defend the Constitution.

It is important to make things clear. With regard to the environment, people's first reaction is to say that environmental measures are necessary to protect the quality of our environment. However, it is also our responsibility to make sure that this is done by the right level of government.

In a model that respected Canadian federalism, the federal government would have fulfilled part of its responsibilities in co-operation with the provinces. It would have developed a consensus with them so that any federal legislation to be adopted in this area would be in line with the provinces' actions. It would have allowed any province that wanted to assume full responsibility to do so. And if other provinces wanted to delegate this responsibility to the federal government, they could have done so as well. But this is not what is happening.

The federal government has decided to interfere in an area where Quebec has already assumed some responsibility. This will create duplication again. What Quebecers dislike the most is that both governments are operating in the same field. This has major economic repercussions.

In the pulp and paper industry, for example, or in any industrial sector, just imagine what it will be like for businesses to submit two reports in order to comply with federal and provincial legislation. This involves additional costs. There is even an adverse effect that environmental groups have not perhaps thought of. Businesses will develop an aversion to all environmental protection measures, not necessarily because they are bad measures individually, but because their businesses will have been hampered by the presence of both levels of government in the same sectors.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois has moved a series of amendments today. The member for Jonquière is consistent with what Quebec has defended for many years in order to ensure respect for its jurisdiction, but also in order to ensure that the economic stakeholders can operate in the context of the maximum productivity and effectiveness consistent with adequate environmental regulations.

The federal government has upset the apple cart by deciding to charge right in without considering the effects on the economy as a whole.

It is handling the reduction of greenhouse gases the same way. Regulations already exist. We will find ourselves in a maze of contradicting regulations. Five or ten years from now, we may find ourselves in the same situation we were in recently, short of our international commitments because, instead of doing something about those aspects of environmental policy that are indeed its business, the federal government preferred to meddle in other jurisdictions.

Report stage gives the government a fine opportunity to accept the Bloc's amendments and to act not as a unitary, centralizing state but as a real federal state respecting the jurisdictions of all partners. It could then take into account what already exists at the provincial level and ensure that there is no duplication.

Environmental groups feel that, when promoting a clean environment and trying to bring industries to accept reasonable standards, there has to be a consensus within the community. But if there is one consensus, it is that too much government is not a good thing.

In any area, one level of government is enough, if we want to have a good relationship and partnership with companies. Two levels of government need not be involved in the protection of the environment, especially if this means that regulations would be developed behind closed doors and that businesses would have to make representations at both levels to ensure that the decisions made are appropriate.

Some argued, for example, that there would be a double safety net, but in the final analysis, this could be dangerous. Would it not be simpler to clearly define who should do what? Then we could hold the responsible level of government accountable for the results it has achieved instead of having the two levels of government accusing each other of adversely affecting results by their respective actions or by imposing an inefficient system.

The aim of the amendments we introduced is to have this legislation conform to the Canadian federal system and respect the responsibilities of the provinces. Thus, having assumed a certain leadership, provinces which have regulations will be able to continue to implement them, improve them, make them comprehensive and thus avoid what has happened in the other sectors, namely the useless overlap of federal and provincial governments.

It is rather surprising that, after all these years of criticism of overlap, we discover that in many sectors, the federal government is once again firing up its steamroller to make Canada a single model, despite the many failures it has met in the past.

Let us look at fish management policies for a moment. It was under federal government jurisdiction, but through standard application, through the—

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member has a prop. This is contrary to the standing orders of the House of Commons. He has something under his papers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, I saw nothing, except the hon. member's notes. If he has a prop, I am sure he will not show it.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my day planner.

We are here to deal with the Environmental Protection Act because the federal government decided to intervene in a sector that is not under its jurisdiction, to increase overlap.

I was using fisheries as an example, a sector where the federal government had intervened with catastrophic results. Today, we no longer know what fish stocks there are. This has certainly caused a disruption in major fishing communities in Canada.

There are lessons to be drawn from an example such as this one and from many others so the federal government will pay attention to our amendments and agree to incorporate them in the bill to make it more acceptable and in keeping with the Canadian Constitution.

I find it quite unbelievable that we have to defend this point of view. The federal government is acting precisely as if there were only one jurisdiction in Canada, a central, single government, as if it could decide for all of the provincial governments. They would be seen as mere administrations and not entities responsible to those who elected them. This is how things would be done throughout the country.

We have to keep reminding the government that it does not have full responsibility in each and every area of jurisdiction. They should be humble enough to accept this and to agree to redevelop a consensus model with the provinces, even though it could take a little more time to build something solid. At some point, we need to get interesting results at the international level.

Let me conclude by saying that, if the federal government wants to show that it fully respects everyone's areas of jurisdiction, first, it should accept our amendments. Second, it should invite provincial premiers to take part in international environmental summits to present the results they have so far, instead of maintaining that, as the only government, it has complete and full responsibility in this matter, which is not true. The government is violating the very constitution it claims to protect.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and great concern that I stand today to speak to a very important bill, Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

I am very much aware of environmental issues, having been the Bloc Quebecois' environment critic from 1995 to 1997. I am therefore very much interested in environmental issues debated in the House.

All the more so that in the last Parliament and especially in 1995, I had the opportunity to participate, as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, in the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, also called CEPA.

After hearing the witnesses who came before the committee, I and other members were appalled by the seriousness of issues raised by witnesses and by the urgent need to develop realistic and viable solutions to fix the CEPA.

The problems in the act are of several types. One has only to think of the double safety net, duplication of responsibilities with provinces and the constant tendency of this government to centralize all powers and deal with provinces as second class entities.

Thus it is for those reasons, among others, that the Bloc Quebecois felt compelled to table a dissenting opinion in the report entitled

It's About Our Health: Pollution Prevention.

As the old saying goes, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. It is as though we are still in 1995 debating Bill C-74 that died on the order paper during the last Parliament. What a glaring example of the do-nothing attitude of this federal government. It is appalling.

Let us look more closely at Bill C-32 and we will see why it is so inappropriate and centralizing. You can count on me to demonstrate it.

What it is important to know about this bill is that it replaces the Environmental Protection Act. With Bill C-32 preventing pollution becomes a national objective, as if the provinces and Quebec were incapable of protecting their environment.

When I think of the Kyoto treaty, there is room for doubt about the federal government's policies and great national intentions. We shall get back to that a bit later.

The main objective of Bill C-32 is to replace the federal-provincial CEPA committee with a new national advisory committee. This will advise the federal government on drawing up regulations, managing toxic substances, and other issues of mutual interest.

Second, Bill C-32 puts in place a framework of action which assigns the ability to require planning of pollution prevention in connection with the substances declared toxic according to CEPA.

Thus pollution prevention also becomes a national objective, as does the creation of a national pollution prevention information clearing-house.

As well, where biotechnology is concerned, the bill establishes a federal safety net, as well as the authority to implement regulations aimed at the safe use of biotechnology.

As for protection of our water, the bill is aimed at protecting the marine environment from pollution sources on land or in the atmosphere. Bill C-32 will beef up the authority of CEPA concerning the regulation of fuels and fuel additives.

The bill will give the government the authority to establish national fuels marks. To protect the atmosphere, Bill C-32 provides for the establishment of national marks for emissions meeting the standards. It contains provisions to limit emissions from motor vehicles in general, including pleasure craft, construction equipment, farm machinery, snow blowers and lawn mowers. Also, the bill gives the federal government more control over the transborder movement of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, including household garbage.

As my second last point, I will say that aboriginal peoples are represented on a national advisory committee, as the provinces and the territories. They will have the same rights and responsibilities as provincial and territorial governments.

Finally, there will be a greater input from and greater protection of members of the public acting as whistleblowers regarding violations of the CEPA.

The Liberals have often used the environment as the perfect example of progressive, open and decentralized federalism. If I may, I will quote the Prime Minister of Canada, from the February 27, 1996 throne speech:

The federal government will propose to the provinces a much strengthened process to work in partnership, focussing on such priorities as...environmental management—

The bill talks about a national committee, national goals, a national centre, a federal net, and so on and so forth. What became of the provinces in this bill?

Let us be clear: Although in theory Bill C-32 recognizes that responsibility for the environment is shared between the federal government and the provinces, in practice it delegates no powers to them, including Quebec, and this runs counter to real environmental harmonization between the various levels of government. Bill C-32 aims at strengthening the federal government's preponderance in the field of environmental protection.

Therefore, it is easy to understand why the Quebec minister of the environment has always refused to sign the January 29, 1998 environmental harmonization agreement of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

The purpose of that agreement was to improve the protection of the environment in the context of sustainable development, while respecting the jurisdictions of each government. The Bloc Quebecois has always supported harmonization between the federal and provincial governments when it would serve to eliminate administrative and legislative overlap and duplication between two levels of government.

Considering the contents of the environmental harmonization agreement and of Bill C-32, it is crystal clear that the federal government does not want to acknowledge its own constitution, which states that the environment is an exclusive or primary jurisdiction of the provinces.

How can this government claim to be in a better position than the provinces to protect the environment of Quebecers? Let us see what the federal government has done to our environment following the Kyoto agreement. Let us also look at what Quebec has done to eliminate greenhouse gases, by comparison to the federal government.

At the Rio summit in 1992, 154 countries, including Canada, signed the UN framework agreement on climatic change, thereby undertaking to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 levels by the year 2000. Seen at the time as a leader and champion in eliminating greenhouse gases, Canada has now lost all credibility.

Even Canada's environment ambassador, John Fraser, quite rightly had very harsh words for this government and its greenhouse gas policies; he accused it of lacking conviction and leadership. This is a disaster.

By the year 2000, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will have increased by 13%. How are we to explain this, when the federal Liberal government made a commitment in Rio to stabilize its emissions during this decade and then progressively reduce them? Let us talk about this reduction: 3% up until 2010. That is how concerned this government is about the environment. Not.

It is therefore obvious that the federal government wants to use Bill C-32 to substantially increase its environmental powers when, under the Constitution, environment is a jurisdiction that is shared by various levels of government.

Through its paternalistic and centralizing attitude, this government is trying to relegate the provinces to a back seat. For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois has no choice but to vote against the bill.