Debates of May 27th, 1999

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that there have been some changes to the voting pattern for the report stage of Bill C-32. The details concerning these changes are available at the table.

I also want to point out that Motion No. 216, which was included in Group No. 5, has been transferred to Group No. 2 for the purpose of the debate.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the continuation of the debate today on Bill C-32.

I want to begin by saying what it is that we are discussing here in the House of Commons today. The background to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is an act respecting pollution and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. It is a reintroduction of Bill C-74 which died with the dissolution of parliament prior to the June 1997 federal election. It consists of some 12 parts and 8 divisions with a total of 353 clauses that include regulations on such things as toxic substances, exports and imports of hazardous waste, biotechnology, ocean dumping, vehicle emissions, fuels and fuel additives, international air pollution, enforcement and other environmentally related matters.

It is also noteworthy to tell the House and others that Bill C-32 underwent one of the lengthiest reviews in recent parliamentary history setting several records. The committee, chaired by the hon. member for Davenport, held some 59 meetings, 37 of which were on clause by clause review. More than 560 amendments were drafted for consideration, exceeding some other bills. In terms of our particular party and the member for Churchill River, the New Democratic Party submitted over 100 amendments at committee.

The committee determined that the health and environmental association of the bill was too weak. It accepted the notion that there was a pro-industry bias to require little action to act for environmental protection. The underlying theme was a complete devolution of the powers of the environment minister to any other federal department or government jurisdiction.

The committee review presented an interesting dynamic. The New Democratic Party, the Conservatives, the Bloc and several Liberal members pursued a mandate to improve environmental protection. The Reform support for the Liberal government agenda carried the majority of close votes on proposed amendments.

The bill, as amended by committee and referred to the House, is supportable. Although not perfect, there have been additions to ensure that the precautionary principle provides the basis for environmental protection and that the environment minister's ability to act to protect the environment and human health is retained. However, the NDP has very serious concerns that the government's report stage amendments could reverse committee improvements that strengthen Bill C-32.

I am aware that we are on Group No. 1 amendments. I will now turn to those and quickly outline the New Democratic Party's concerns in that area.

Group No. 1 removes the phase-out of the worst of toxic substances. It removes the achievement of virtual elimination. It weakens the committee effort to strengthen precautionary principle with government efforts to return cost effective restriction before taking protective measures.

We support Motions Nos. 26 and 83 which recognize precautionary principle to be added for legal clarity. We moved Motion No. 61 for improved inherent toxicity interpretation which removes restrictions to amounts or quantities.

The NDP supports the principles of pollution prevention and polluter pays. We recognize the balance between the environment and the economy, in other words sustainable development. We think that it can be a difficult task. We are not against industry. We are against polluters who place our environment and our human health at risk.

The links between chemical exposures and human health are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The links between the contamination of the environment and the damage and degradation to Canada's biodiversity, including wildlife, are proven.

The Great Lakes, an area, Mr. Speaker, that I know you grew up on the shores of and and so did I, became one of this planet's infamous laboratories in this regard. We remember only too well the near loss of eagles from damaged eggs, the near loss of the ability to reproduce. Mothers depended on fish from these lakes and passed the contamination on to their children and it will be passed on to their children. It is not anyone's fault; it is the fault of the previous unknown, the unproven.

In the far north, mothers in Canada's arctic have PCBs and a variety of chemicals contained in their breast milk. Another generation faces known consequences, including learning disabilities, shortened attention spans and an increase in behavioural problems. Again, it is not their fault. It is the fault of industrial practices from this century carried by the winds and waters for thousands of miles. It is the environment that is contaminated.

Wildlife studies demonstrate these effects are passed between generations. The adverse impacts continue throughout the next offspring, the next and the next.

The fault lies with those polluters who allowed and continue to allow the poisoning of our environment that supports life, including humans as a species. The fault lies with the manufacturers of these chemicals that poison our shared environment. It is a disgrace that there are toxic manufacturers that continue to make and ship those poisons to countries without laws or protections against the criminals.

The fault also lies with legislators, those elected representatives, politicians who could have acted and should have acted to protect their fellow citizens, the environment, the fate and the future of their children and tomorrow's children. The fault lies with those parliamentarians who ignore history, ignore the facts, ignore the science, and avoid the leadership and vision to protect the common good and our children.

On the Group No. 1 amendments specifically, I draw attention to a series of motions proposed therein that will continue to poison our environment and our lives. The House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development went through one of the most comprehensive legislative reviews in Canada's history.

We believe that the amended legislation can protect the environment and give the dedicated scientists and citizens who wish to protect our environment and human health the tools to do the job.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the proceedings but I think we will have to suspend the sitting for a few moments. The bells will ring to summon members back to the Chamber.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.33 a.m.)

The House resumed at 10.51 a.m.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up my speech on the Group No. 1 amendments to the CEPA legislation. The New Democratic Party supports Bill C-32 as amended by the committee. We believe the amended legislation can protect the environment and give the dedicated scientists and citizens who wish to protect our environment and human health the tools to do that job.

However, a series of motions in this group removes the phase-out of the worst toxic substances. In the opinion of the NDP, Motions Nos. 1 and 2 set the stage for the Reform Party and the Liberal cabinet to appease their polluter friends and remove the need to phase-out the most persistent and bioaccumulative substances. We have to ask about the guiding principle.

Why do we not recognize that we must remove these toxic threats which continue to poison Canadians and our environment? The Reform Party and the Liberal cabinet only seem to be interested to “virtually eliminate” these substances, but the toxics will still be manufactured and used. They will still be emitted into the environment. There is still the threat of a spill or an accident and these are the most persistent and insidious chemicals that we know of.

The industry said when we were attempting to remove lead from gasoline that it would be a crisis. We were able to do that. There are a number of other things that we have been able to do over time that the producers of these products said would be a catastrophe. They said that they would go out of business if we did that. They screamed foul and they started a fear campaign. In the case of lead they said that there would be no more cars on the roads if we did not leave lead in gasoline and there were a number of other hysterical concerns.

We spend 45 minutes each day at question period when Liberal cabinet ministers, one after another, stand to condemn the Reform Party for all things that are wrong with this country and all things that are wrong with that party. As far as I am concerned, they spend the other 23 hours and 15 minutes doing the business of the Reform Party in producing very bad legislation for this country, and this is but one example.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The first question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The vote on the motion is deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The vote on the motion is deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.