Debates of May 27th, 1999

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the questions on the motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put, and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deemed deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 3.

Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the motions in Group No. 3 are deemed to have been moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 6, 7, 137 to 139, and 148 to 150.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I need some clarification. Are we not voting on the motions in Group No. 2 at this time?

[The Deputy Speaker]

No. Because of the order adopted earlier today, it has been decided that all motions are deemed to have been moved, and that a recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 45 to 48 on page 2 and lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the following:

“versity through pollution prevention and the control and management of toxic substances;”

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 46 to 48 on page 2 and line 1 on page 3 with the following:

“trol and management of the risk of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, pollutants and wastes, and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the need to protect the environment, including its biological diversity, and human health, by ensuring the safe and effective use of biotechnology;”

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended a ) by replacing lines 40 to 42 on page 78 with the following:

“(7) For the purposes of the administration of this section, the Governor in Council is responsible for” b ) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 79 with the following: a ) if the Governor in Council determines that the” c ) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 79 with the following:

“made under that Act, the Governor in Council” d ) by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 79 with the following: b ) if the Governor in Council determines that the” e ) by replacing, in the English version, lines 18 and 19 on page 79 with the following:

“ule 4, the Governor in council may by order delete”

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 45 on page 78 and lines 1 to 21 on page 79 with the following:

“(7) For the purposes of the administration of this section, the Governor in Council has the exclusive responsibility for determining whether or not the requirements referred to in paragraph (6)( a ) are met by or under an Act of Parliament referred to in that paragraph, or regulations made under that Act, and a ) if the Governor in Council determines that the requirements referred to in paragraph (6)( a ) are met by or under an Act of Parliament referred to in that paragraph, or regulations made under that Act, the Governor in Council may by order add to Schedule 4 the name of that Act or those regulations, as the case may be, and the fact that an Act or regulations are listed in Schedule 4 is conclusive proof that the requirements referred to in paragraph (6)( a ) are met; and b ) if the Governor in Council determines that the requirements referred to in paragraph (6)( a ) are no longer met by or under an Act of Parliament, or regulations, listed in Schedule 4, the Governor in Council may by order delete from Schedule 4 the name of that Act or those regulations, as the case may be."

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

moved:

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended a ) by replacing lines 41 to 45 on page 78 and lines 1 to 4 on page 79 with the following:

“this section, the Ministers and the minister responsible for the other Act referred to in paragraph (6)( a ) are responsible for determining whether or not the requirements referred to in that paragraph are met by that other Act or regulations made under that Act, and ( a ) if the Ministers and that other minister determine that the” b ) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 79 with the following:

“made under that Act, the Ministers and that other minister” c ) by replacing, in the English version, lines 13 and 14 on page 79 with the following: b ) if the Ministers and that other minister determine that the” d ) by replacing, in the English version, lines 18 and 19 on page 79 with the following:

“ule 4, the Ministers and that other minister may by order delete”

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 17 on page 87 with the following:

“Parliament in a manner that provides, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, sufficient protection to the environment and human health.”

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 17 on page 87 with the following:

“Parliament in a manner that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, provides sufficient protection to the environment and human health.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 87 with the following:

“Parliament that, in the opinion of the Ministers and the minister responsible for the other Act,”

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Group No. 3 amendments deal primarily with biotechnology. As a result of the amendments that were made by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development during the clause by clause process, the preamble now references products of biotechnology.

For greater clarity, government Motion No. 7 retains this reference but places it in a separate statement within the preamble. This provision recognizes the need to protect the environment by providing for the safe and effective use of products of biotechnology.

A couple of other motions focus on avoiding duplication when it comes to biotechnology. Assessment and control of products of biotechnology fall under several laws, including CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Bill C-32 includes provisions to ensure that actions taken under other laws are not duplicated by CEPA. It operates on the principle that other laws must provide sufficient protection for the environment and human health. Government motions to amend the biotechnology part of Bill C-32 are consistent with this approach of using CEPA to ensure the protection of the environment and human health.

With regard to the opposition motions, let me say that all ministers in the government have responsibility for the environment. A key point, however, is that CEPA sets the standard for biotechnology. Other acts must assess for toxicity to determine if new products of biotechnology have the potential to harm the environment or human health. Several pieces of federal legislation govern products of biotechnology and expertise is shared across several departments. As such, it only makes sense to put decision making related to the use of CEPA in the hands of the governor in council.

Ironically, PC motions in this area seek to adopt a decision making model that was deleted by the standing committee because of the concern that it might create unnecessary delays or prevent action. I urge all members of the House to support the motions in Group No. 3 that are government motions and to vote against the PC motions that will come before us sometime next week.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to the preamble is also of some importance. It ought to be elaborated on in a more balanced way because the insertion of the word risk in the preamble certainly raises some important and difficult questions.

This is an amendment that was not discussed in committee. It is a very recent initiative. It did not receive the full discussion that an amendment of this importance ought to receive considering that whatever is included in the preamble provides guidance for those who will interpret the legislation no matter what the name of the legislation may be.

There are some who say that the insertion of the word risk would strengthen this clause of the preamble because it would call for action where there are potential adverse effects or risks and not just actual adverse effects. That may well be so, but there is also another interpretation which should encourage us to be cautious before supporting this kind of amendment.

It is quite possible because of the element of surprise attached to this motion that it was proposed by industry without a proper discussion in committee, as I said. It is quite possible that by including the word risk in the preamble the government would not be able to act quickly to eliminate harmful substances. It is therefore an initiative that is part of a broader offensive so to speak, by lobbyists that represent a specific sector but who do not take into account the main thrust and purpose of this bill which is to prevent pollution and to protect human health.

Risk assessment is part of the government policy. It is elaborated on in the toxic substances management policy. In that policy, risk assessment is dealt with in a quite satisfactory manner. It is a policy that the government adopted in 1995. I am afraid that by inserting this terminology in the preamble the effectiveness of the toxic substances management policy would be superseded or weakened by this initiative.

As has probably been understood by the thrust of this debate, we want to strengthen and enhance pollution prevention. We want to use this piece of legislation as the only strong piece of legislation that actually protects human health from toxic substances. There is none other available in the arsenal of legislation the federal government has passed on behalf of Canadians.

It is a motion that somehow puts aside the long deliberations and discussions that took place in committee as was mentioned earlier by an hon. member. It is rather disturbing considering that this bill was in committee for such a long time that an amendment is put forward here that was not the subject of deliberations in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will share the sense of dismay and disappointment at this kind of procedure. After all we have a well organized system under the roof of this parliament. We send bills to committee for deliberation, examination, study and possible improvements. That is what we did.

As parliamentarians from all parties, we do not look favourably to those initiatives whereby an amendment is proposed out of the blue so to speak, which may have some serious implications. Also the jury is not in yet because this bill is not yet in place. This in a way bypasses the system. It is a practice that ought to be discouraged, Mr. Speaker, and it is my duty to bring it to your attention.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this group of amendments. I hope I can hold the bill; it is not a prop, I just want to use it to highlight the clause on which I want to focus.

In Bill C-32 the preamble states the whole spirit and intent of the bill. When we deal with the Group No. 3 amendments that have come forward, I would like to highlight that with Motions Nos. 6 and 7 there is a kind of tag team between the Reform Party and the Liberal cabinet on behalf of the minister. They have brought forward two amendments that are quite detrimental to the protection of our environment and our health in the future.

The motion deals with a preamble that states in part:

Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes, and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances;

Reform is releasing and completely taking away the whole aspect of virtual elimination of these toxic substances and highlighting the topic of control and management of pollution.

I would like to inform the House of another preamble. These go hand in hand. Obviously the minister and the Reform members who brought these motions forward together have had some guidance from somebody. In a previous motion, the government acknowledges the need to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances and the need to control and manage pollutants and waste that were released in the environment.

What I am saying is that this bill and the government should be phasing out pollutants that are toxic and harmful to our health and our environment. We have to phase these out. I beg that members of all parties would listen to this. We need to take pollution out of our environment, not to control and manage it.

The two motions brought forward by the Reform and the minister are that we continue to control and manage pollution. Let us stop doing that. Let us look at phasing out the pollution, getting the poison out of our air, land and water and making a safe environment for the future.

This group of amendments is not a surprise. Through the committee process we tackled hard and strong to strengthen Bill C-32. These two amendments focus on the preamble. I highlight that for all members in the House and for Canadians listening to make sure that everyone is aware that these amendments could be a detriment to the existing structure of the CEPA.

The other issue that comes into play in this grouping is biodiversity and the whole issue of biotechnology. The products of biotechnology are highlighted in this group of amendments. The amendments ask that the exclusive responsibility of biotechnology and the products of biotechnology in the country be given to the governor in council. This removes the responsibilities that the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have in terms of duties and roles under the act and gives them to the governor in council.

Biotechnology was highlighted in today's media on the issue of cloning. Recently we have seen the evidence of cloning and genetic engineering. We now find that the cloned sheep Dolly has genes and cells that are a detriment and have been deteriorating right from when she was first cloned. Future generations of hers will not exist after the sixth generation. There is scientific evidence that her cells will diminish to the point that she will not be able to reproduce.

That is the essence of the human health and environmental concerns. Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating my time is up so I will continue my speech later.

[The Speaker]

Yes, my colleague, it seems like an appropriate time. You still have five minutes and you will have the floor when we return to debate. Now we will proceed to Statements by Members.

Fred Sabatine

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Cambridge's only known surviving first world war veteran, Mr. Fred Sabatine, will be celebrating his 100th birthday on May 28.

Mr. Sabatine enlisted at the age of 15 and served with the 43rd Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in France and Belgium. He fought at the Battle of Vimy Ridge, regarded by many historians as a defining event in the making of our nation, and went on to earn the British War and Victory medals.

Mr. Sabatine experienced all the horrors and hardships associated with the Great War, including direct exposure to mustard gas which damaged his lungs. The sacrifices made for Canada's freedom by Mr. Sabatine's generation are beyond description.

I am honoured and privileged to express my deepest thanks on behalf of all Canadians to Mr. Sabatine and wish him a happy birthday. God bless you, Fred.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has raised taxes 60 times and has increased revenues by $40 billion yet at the same time it has cut millions from the RCMP budget.

Now there are only five vessels patrolling the entire coast of B.C. Patrol vessels in my riding are only operating every second week.

In Port Alberni two RCMP officers are leaving the detachment and will not be replaced. Special projects have been terminated. The three man drug squad has been put into general policing.

Last year all overtime was suspended. A drug squad that was working on a big case put in so much overtime that they had to shut them down for over four months because they could not pay the overtime. Informants are being paid with cigarettes and IOUs. Now the sources have dried up because there is simply no more money.

Clearly it is time for the government to make the RCMP a priority and restore RCMP funding.

Guaranteed Minimum Income

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his latest work, Passage obligé: Passeport pour l'ère nouvelle , Charles Sirois writes the following about a minimum guaranteed income.

“What if the social safety net were replaced by a protective net, one that were not intended for a specific category of citizens but for everyone without distinction? This protection would take the form of a guaranteed minimum income.

Every person aged 18 and over, rich or poor, male or female, young or old, would receive on an annual basis a sum of money corresponding to the strict minimum necessary for food and housing.

The collective wealth to which all workers and all consumers contribute, and which the government keeps in its coffers, would no longer be used to assist certain classes of citizens.

Couples would share in this guaranteed minimum income, as would students over the age of 18, and seniors as well.”

This is the true formula for abolishing poverty in Canada.

Canada's Walk Of Fame

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to join all Canadians in congratulating the newest inductees to Canada's Walk of Fame, whose stars will be unveiled today during a special ceremony in Toronto. Each one of these celebrated Canadians has made a significant national and international contribution in entertainment, culture and sport.

Canada's Walk of Fame is a recognition not of a single achievement, but of an entire body of work. These stars represent many of the facets of our cultural life: the evolution of cinema from the silent films of Mary Pickford to the futuristic images created by our David Cronenberg; music ranging from the 1960s protest anthems of Buffy Sainte-Marie to the rock anthems of Rush. They remind us of the thrill of seeing Rocket Richard flash across the ice, or of experiencing Céline Dion in concert. From the intimate family moments we have shared watching Wayne and Shuster and “our pet” Juliette to the enjoyment of the film characters created by Hume Cronyn and Lou Jacobi, each star is a shining example of the talent and creativity of our great country.

Four more stars will be awarded this year by public nomination. I encourage all Canadians to participate in selecting the most famous Canadians who have inspired them through telling our stories, sharing our hopes and adding sparkle to our lives.

Citizen Of The Year Award

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate this year's recipients of the Grimsby and District Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year awards.

Reverend Jim Dowden has been involved in a wide variety of volunteer tasks and is perhaps best known through his recent work with Grimsby's hospital action committee where Jim's vision and endurance were well illustrated.

Jim's ability to enrich the fabric of the community no matter what he does sets a high standard for community service. His leadership combines vision and compassion and he is a most deserving recipient of the Citizen of the Year award.

Michelle Alfieri has been named the junior citizen of the year for her contribution to a variety of worthwhile causes, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital. Michelle has juggled her volunteer work with an active sports schedule and a part time job. All this while maintaining a grade point average of 90%. She has received early acceptance from McMaster University where she plans to study biochemical engineering and medicine.

My best wishes to the recipients.

Agriculture

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, right now in southwestern Manitoba farmers are experiencing the devastating flood runoff from torrential rains at the worst possible time.

Already faced with low commodity prices and an unworkable federal aid program, they are seeing their seeding plans deteriorate as more than two million acres are in danger of not being planted. That could put the survival of many farms in serious jeopardy.

Last week I toured some of the affected areas and I was astounded at the seriousness of the situation. Estimates are that 3,000 farmers are affected. In fact, nine municipalities have been declared disaster areas.

If exceptionally warm, dry weather does not occur in the next couple of weeks, the government had better be prepared to step in and help these farmers through this crisis, which threatens to be as devastating as the Red River flood.

Manufacturing And Information Technology Centre

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago an important announcement was made in my riding of Whitby—Ajax.

The announcement details an innovative training centre and a number of facility upgrades that are designed to help ease the critical shortage of highly skilled information technology and technical workers in Canada. To put this announcement into context, it has been estimated that the shortage of IT workers in Canada is between 15,000 and 30,000.

The facility announced this morning will be known as the Manufacturing and Information Technology Centre and it will be located at Durham College.

It is also highly noteworthy that Durham College will carry out this project with significant intellectual and equipment contributions from Bell Canada, General Motors, IBM and Nortel Networks.

Durham region is a major player on the manufacturing scene in Canada and around the world. This area also has the second fastest growing population in Canada and the second highest per capita income of the 20 census metropolitan areas in the country.

The importance of MITC for Canada as well as my—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau.