Debates of May 27th, 1999

Points Of Order

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader made a very clear and distinct inference that my party had accepted money from a federal agency, not a crown corporation but a federal agency. He was very specific.

I would like to ask the government House leader if he would table the document—

[The Speaker]

This is debate and not a point of order.

Business Of The House

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what he will add to the thin soup agenda of the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question.

Today we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-32, the environment bill. The legislation, as back-up in the event that we would complete the consideration of Bill C-32 this afternoon, which I am sure is very likely, would be Bill C-54 respecting electronic commerce. Tomorrow we will consider report and third reading stages of Bill C-79, the victims bill, and Bill C-64, the expositions bill.

Next Monday and Tuesday, if we have not completed Bill C-32 today, we will complete Bill C-32 at report stage on Monday and at third reading on Tuesday.

Next Wednesday, June 2, we will put Bill C-54, the electronic commerce bill, at the top of the order paper. This is our intention, in the hope of disposing of this very important government initiative.

Thursday, June 3, shall be an allotted day.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, given the announcement yesterday with respect to the changes in Bill C-55, does the leader of the government in the House expect that Bill C-55 will be coming back to the House before the summer recess? Could he make clear what the government's intention is with respect to Bill C-55?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, because the bill is before the other place an amendment to the bill in question would be made there before it is referred back to this place.

The bill is still before the other place. I do not foresee that it will be back here before another week. I intend to discuss this item with opposition House leaders at the earliest opportunity, probably Tuesday of next week.

All things being equal, hopefully the bill will be back in the House toward the end of next week or shortly thereafter.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 3.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, before we were interrupted for question period I was about to allude to a letter from a citizen. I wanted to highlight the concerns of citizens across the country, especially the youth. I heard from many students and received many letters. A satellite link-up was created last year as part of the millennium project in Ottawa. Students from coast to coast to coast had an opportunity to converse with the Prime Minister.

The first concern that was raised about the future of our country dealt with the environment. Our children know that we have to take care of the future needs, the water, the soil, the land, the food, the vegetables and the fruits we eat.

Farming is a major industry in terms of agri-food. Family farms and organic farmers are very dependent on economic survival. They have been inundated by an industrial revolution in the area of better produce and better yields, but chemicals have been a mainstay of this research and development.

Science has proven that some of the food life cycles and the ecosystem are in danger. In the long term it is a detriment to our children. Children are nurtured at a young age. They are dependent on their mothers for nutrition and are vulnerable in terms of what we feed them.

The long term effect takes time. As adults we are introduced to new chemicals. Our defence system is well in tact. However, when children are exposed to them toxins can be released into their bodies which affect their organs and neurological system.

The letter highlighted the inability of the government to protect us. It referred to how the government reacted to the issue of MMT as a manganese additive to gasoline last summer. The environment minister and the health minister actually endorsed manganese. The Ethyl Corporation filed a lawsuit. Its country has banned MMT but Canada seems to be a freewheeling region in North America. It engages in scientific research to explore these additives without our being able to protect ourselves. It is actually infringing on our sovereign right to protect our environment and our health.

Bill C-32 concerns the Canadian sovereign right to protect our environmental health and ecosystem. The grouping we are now talking about concerns provincial and federal responsibilities. I highlight for the minister and her cabinet that an example was given to us in the Kyoto protocol. The European Community is not only self-combining its economic source, social and cultural entities and currency. It is also looking at itself as an ecosystem. At Kyoto it brought forward the eco-European bubble concept.

Canada has to look at itself as a bubble. Whatever we do in Ottawa, whatever we do in Ontario, affects Quebec. Quebec affects the maritimes. The maritimes affect Vancouver, the whole Arctic and its vulnerability. The Arctic does not get a direct impact from industrial economic events but it gets the environmental impacts of everything we do in the development of industry.

I ask Canadians and parliamentarians in the House to make sure that Bill C-32 protects the future health of our children and the future of our environment.

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

Madam Speaker, for those people who have just tuned in, we are debating Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There were over 560 amendments in committee and another 235 that have come before the House at report stage. The bill has had more amendments than any other bill in many years.

We are speaking to Group No. 3 amendments. There are eight amendments in this group. They deal largely with residual powers and the use of toxic substances. The Reform Party put forward three of the eight amendments. There is a fair bit of overlap between our amendments and those proposed by both the government and the Conservative Party.

Our Motion No. 6 deals specifically with concern over reference in the bill to the use of toxic substances. It ensures that the focus in the bill is on management rather than on the use of toxic substances. The focus of the federal government has consistently been on managing toxic substances rather than on their use.

It is important to note that it is the improper management and release of toxic substances which result in adverse effects on human health and environment. This is a cause for public concern and government action, not the use of these substances.

I can use lead as an example. Lead is on the toxic substances list. When it is used improperly, such as in gasoline, in paint and in lead shot used to kill birds, management needs to ensure those practices do not happen. Lead in keels of sailboats, in weights for divers or in car batteries is perfectly safe. It is the management of these substances that this legislation should deal with.

Concerning use separately from the improper release or exposure to toxic substances derogates from the risk based principles which are the foundation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The preamble was amended in committee to change the focus and the direction of the act.

Our amendment returns the preamble to the original language proposed by the government when Bill C-32 was tabled in the House. We believe that the act should retain the government's clear policy to control releases.

Motion No. 6 will ensure that the approach contained within Bill C-32 is consistent with toxic management strategies already incorporated and pursued by the international community in its risk reduction activities.

The government amendment, Motion No. 7, only partially addresses the same section and touches on concerns regarding the use rather than the management of toxic substances. Our amendments, Motions Nos. 137 and 149, both deal with concerns regarding residual powers.

Our Motions Nos. 149 and 137 propose to empower the governor in council so that it can ensure parliament provides sufficient protection of the environment and human health. When Bill C-32 was originally tabled by the government it contained proposals which established that matters of co-ordination between different departments were to be determined by cabinet. These amendments were accepted by the standing committee in all sections of the bill except for two, sections 106 and 115 which deal with biotechnology.

The committee amended these sections so that the environment minister, and where appropriate the health minister, could determine matters of co-ordination. Our amendments propose to return the section originally proposed by the government when Bill C-32 was tabled in the House. This is consistent with the other sections within the bill.

We propose that the governor in council or cabinet, rather than the Minister of the Environment or Minister of Health, should determine whether there is overlap between departments and ensure that interdepartmental overlap and duplication are avoided in clauses 106 and 115. Clearly if the weight of significant decisions falls on cabinet throughout the bill, it should also consistently deal with areas of biotechnology.

We are pleased to see that the government clearly supports our amendments as it not only proposed the original section that we support but tabled Motion Nos. 138 and 148 which are almost identical to our Motions Nos. 137 and 149.

Our amendments address concerns that were brought to us by many parties. We listened and we acted on these concerns and introduced our amendments. Unfortunately, the Conservative party has missed the mark on its Motion No. 139, which similarly attempts to amend the same clause that Reform does in our Motion No. 137.

However, the member for Fundy—Royal has proposed to retain reference to the ministers rather than cabinet as most of us agree is far more suited to this degree of decision making. Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendments of the Progressive Conservative Party.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that our amendments aim to ensure that Canadians have clear, effective legislation to prevent pollution and protect the environment and the human health of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again today to speak to Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

My remarks will be directed primarily at the motions in Group No. 3, which concern the preamble and toxic substances such as lead.

I add my voice to that of the member for Davenport in criticizing this government and expressing my indignation at the way it has treated and is treating the environment committee by tabling significant amendments today in the House. These amendments should have been introduced in committee to give us an opportunity to thoroughly study them.

Throughout the environment committee's proceedings, we analyzed more than 500 amendments over the past few weeks. The government did not hesitate to introduce amendments at the last minute. They were rushed through the committee. They should have been thoroughly studied by the committee.

I am extremely disappointed that the Minister of the Environment affords such cavalier treatment to a committee comprising representatives of all parties in this House: the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party.

We analyzed everything that was introduced in the environment committee, but clearly this government does not have enough respect for the people there to ensure that this legislation contains an element of common sense and provides for some carryover into the future.

We cannot analyze an environment act every year. This law will be in effect in Canada for the next 10 years. We will move into the next century with this law, and we have to admit that this government chose not to give the environment committee the means, the time or the authority to study the significant amendments it has tabled today in the House.

When we do not have time to study something, it is better to abstain or to vote against it.

I wish to point out that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting as a whole against all the amendments by the Reform Party and the Liberal Party in Group No. 3.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak again to another set of amendments on Bill C-32. We talked a bit this morning about Group No. 2 and we are now on Group No 3. The list is quite a bit shorter than the one we talked about this morning, but there are some very important issues in this grouping. Some of the amendments in this grouping could effectively change the bill and its effectiveness. I will just go through some of these.

These two groups of amendments deal basically with the use of toxic substances and the residual powers of the federal government.

I would like to speak first to the use of toxic substances and the amendments put forward by my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni. This amendment, which, as stated earlier, is supported by the minister, would return the original wording back to the preamble.

The preamble to this new CEPA begins with outlining the commitment that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canada, while acknowledging that the primary purpose of this bill is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention. That pretty well sums up the bill in its entirety and takes into account the health and the continuation of sustainable development, things that are so important without which we would have little else.

The preamble contains 14 separate commitments and goals of the government. Three of these commitments or goals would be reworded versions of four of the six statements found in the preamble of the current act, while the remaining goals and commitments would deal with the new concepts and priorities such as: first, the goal of achieving sustainable development and an acknowledgement of the need to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in all decisions by the government and private sector. That issue is one on which we seem to differ from party to party in the House as to what weight we should place on each one of them.

I personally feel that if we leave out the economic and social factors, then we are leaving out an important fact. If we do not have any economic or social factors to look at, then some of the pressure that would be brought to bear on individuals to act is not there. When some people fight to have economic and social factors taken out of the equation, they are actually working against a healthy environment.

Second, a commitment to implementing pollution prevention as a natural goal and as the priority approach to environmental protection.

Third, a recognition of the importance of an ecosystem approach.

Fourth, a commitment to implementing the precautionary principle as defined by the universally accepted Rio definition. It is very important that the definition that is being used is the one being used universally in the world. We heard some comments earlier that is a flexible definition to be decided on by each country, but we must be very careful that we stay close to what the rest of the world is doing.

Fifth, a recognition of the responsibility of users and producers with respect to toxic substances, pollutants and wastes, and the adoption of the polluter pays principle.

Sixth, a recognition that all levels of government have authority to protect the environment and that they face environmental problems that can benefit from co-operative resolution. Once again we mention co-operation instead of confrontation and the proper balance between the governing authorities.

Seventh, a recognition that science and traditional aboriginal knowledge has an integral role in the environmental and human health decision making process and that environmental or health risks and social, economic and technical matters are to be considered in that process. My hon. friend from Churchill River talked at length about this in committee and certainly brought this issue to light. The fact that it is here, we should give him some credit for that.

Last, an endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention and the control and management of toxic substances.

Because of amendments made in committee, some of the original intentions have been changed. When the bill was first proposed, out of the 560 amendments that came forward, our party chose to put forward 22. That indicated that we were basically pleased with the balance that had been struck by the original Bill C-32. We felt that some of the amendments that took place after altered considerably the original intention of the bill.

Most of the amendments made were fairly agreeable and did not go against the spirit of the bill. However, the amendment to the last commitment of the government has the potential to significantly alter the government's focus. Until now, the government's focus has consistently been on managing the release of toxic substances, not how they were used. That is what the bill should do.

There is a list of some 23,000 substances used by Canadian industry and manufacturing. The use of these substances to create something is one thing, but we have to ensure that they are not released into the atmosphere to harm the environment. As long as their use is not doing that, we should not be too focused on managing or restricting the use of these substances.

This focus is shared by much of the international community and for good reason. Monitoring the use of all substances would be such a monumental task that the department would be overwhelmed by these new demands. As it stands right now, the department cannot even enforce many of its own rules as they exist today.

In committee we heard evidence that enforcement is sorely lacking in this country. It would be irresponsible for parliament to impose an additional burden such as this. It is not the use of toxic substances that is cause for public concern and government attention but their improper management and releases causing adverse effects.

The government's responsibility to monitor releases should be maintained by returning the original wording of the bill. That is what our amendment would do. To consider use separately from release derogates from the risk based principles that are intended to be the foundation of the bill.

The last motions I want to speak to are Motions Nos. 138 and 149 which deal with the residual powers of the federal government, a subject debated at length at the environment committee on almost all issues.

These motions which were first introduced by the true champions of the people, the Reform Party, are nearly identical to the ones introduced by the government. I want to thank the minister and her government for backing up what the Reform Party says, and I want to assure her that any time she needs some more advice on this bill we would be happy to help.

Motion No. 138 amends clause 106, section 7 by requiring that the opinion of the governor in council first be sought before any decisions are made. That would bring in the other ministries because this bill affects everybody in Canada and around the world. When decisions are made that affect a wide scope, the other responsible areas of the ministers should be considered.

Environmental decisions affect everybody from farmers and ranchers to health officials. Because these decisions have such far-reaching implications, it is important that all perspectives are properly heard. Bringing these matters to the cabinet table will ensure that all the affected stakeholders will have an opportunity to make their views known and influence the decision making process.

Motion No. 149 amends clause 115, which is actually the second part of a two clause cluster that deals with regulations. The preceding clause, clause 114, would empower the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister responsible to make regulations relating to living organisms.

These regulations covered a variety of different categories ranging from organisms for research to organisms for export. Section 115 would further empower the governor in council, once again on the recommendation of the ministers of health and environment, to make regulations for implementing an international agreement respecting living organisms and respecting their effective and safe use in pollution prevention.

The second clause of section 115, the section to which Reform has proposed an amendment, would prevent the governor in council from making such regulations where the same aspect of any living organism was regulated by or under any other act of parliament.

The issue comes back again to broadening out the base of decision making and bringing into play the other ministries involved. It considers the scope of the bill to deal with the control of substances so they cannot be released. It does not deal with their abolition or if they are being handled properly.

These amendments are important and we feel that they alone can change the entire scope of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendments in Group No. 3 now before the House.

The first motion in the group was introduced by the Reform Party and seeks to amend a provision in the preamble. Once again the Reform Party chose to side with industry, which wants everything that goes against its vision of environmental and health protection to be watered down.

The wording of the preamble which is the subject of the Reform Party motion reads as follows:

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;

It is thanks to the work of the committee that the words products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes were added to the bill. The Reform Party would like to change the wording to completely eliminate the notions of products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes, and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances.

I wonder why the Reform Party is so adamant on siding with industry, which is asking that the bill, which was already watered down when it came to the committee, be further watered down. After weeks and weeks of work by the committee, we were able to strengthen a web of provisions that, originally, had no teeth to speak of.

There is a consensus that, following the work by the five parties, during which scores of amendments were discussed and some of the important ones will be accepted, the bill as it stands is a compromise. It is a far cry from what we and the environmentalists would have liked, but we believe it is a reasonable compromise under the circumstances.

What has happened today is that the Reform Party has systematically sided with industry to water down the amendments adopted by the committee.

In the same group of motions the government would split this preamble in two. It would introduce the notion of the control and management of the risk of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances. There are some among our researchers who feel that using the word “risk” improves the clause from the environmental point of view because it makes the proof lesser than the proof of adverse effects themselves.

However, the question is asked: If this were so, why in those weeks and weeks of discussion within the committee was this notion not brought about? Why now? Why does it happen under the prompting of industry that this should be introduced?

The other side will say that risk is much more subjective than the effects themselves. People can decide what is risk and what is not risk and evade the very notion of the adverse effects. It is one more notion to add to a disposition that seemed to us to be quite clear in its effect to start with after it had been amended in committee.

I would suggest that we reject both of these amendments which will lessen the importance of this clause in the preamble. There are some who would say that it is only a preamble and a preamble is not part of the operative part of the law. However, it sets a sense of direction as to what we are trying to do.

What I find in a great bulk of the amendments that have been brought forward, except for those in Group No. 2 that we discussed, which put a timeline on consultation, and except for a few that have been proposed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party who sat with us in committee, is that they tend to lessen the power of the act as it stands today.

The sad part is that in the key elements of the legislation, which have been repeated time and again, inherent toxicity, virtual elimination and the precautionary principle, and the powers of the two ministers, the sponsors of the legislation, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, to act autonomously in all of these respects, the amendments that have been brought in dilute those very powers.

None of the elements which are crucial to the legislation have been reinforced. On the contrary, they have been lessened, they have been weakened and they have been diluted. For these reasons—Group No. 3 amendments concerning the provision of the preamble that I discussed, all of the clauses that come up in Group No. 1, some in Group No. 2 and others in other groupings—we feel that this legislation does not stand the scrutiny of the House.

I hope that together we will defeat the amendments that tend to weaken this bill so that the bill will remain the way it is; a fair, reasonable, effective compromise which was achieved as a result of the work of many members of the House. It was diligent work, painstaking work, which led to much compromise and consensus.

It is on that basis that I would support the bill, about which otherwise I have strong reservations.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to the amendments in Group No. 3 to Bill C-32, which will amend the the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

As I already mentioned when discussing Group No. 1 amendments, the bill that was sent to committee included clause 2.2 which called for the avoidance of duplication and overlap in legislation and regulation in areas that involved the protection of the environment and human health.

The clause proposed to resolve any potential duplication by having the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the minister responsible for the other act “jointly decide whether measures that can be taken under the other act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter”, and that matter has to be that of human health and the protection of the environment. This clause, however, was removed from the act during the committee stage of review in favour of introducing separate and more specific clauses in appropriate sections of the bill where the potential for overlap and duplication existed.

The new clauses shifted the power to decide which law would prevail to cabinet from the three ministers, except in the case of biotechnology where the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment would take a decision.

The government is trying to make all sections refer to cabinet for this decision making process. Its proposed motion to amend was already defeated in committee in the biotechnology section. In fact, even Reform voted against this particular proposal.

The essence of what we are talking about, as mentioned by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, is that most of these amendments would water down the strength of the bill.

The amendments that we have tabled within this section address the applicable situations. Instead of having all decisions referred to the governor in council, which we know to be cabinet, we are advocating that the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the other applicable minister decide whether measures can be taken under the other act with respect to protecting human health and the environment in addressing the matter at hand.

In this era of political accountability more often than not the folks who live in the ridings want to know who is accountable for the decisions we make. What the Progressive Conservative Party is advocating is to maintain the same intent that we had with respect to clause 2.2.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who has personally helped me out on an individual basis. I know that he works hard in his particular portfolio, but I know he does not spend a lot of time on the environment. Therefore, I am advocating that the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the other applicable minister, whether it be the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food or any other minister, should actually have the capacity to make a decision and be held accountable. If the wrong decision is made, or perhaps the correct decision, those ministers will be the accountable ministers who come into play, as opposed to sending it to cabinet where other concerns may water down the influence with respect to health and the environment.

I am troubled that perhaps in some circumstances there may be some industrial concerns or some agricultural concerns. For the most part, 99.9 times out of 100, ministers want to ensure that we look after human health and the environment as well. However, I am concerned that at times political pressure might water down the influence of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health.

I am particularly concerned that the budget of the Department of the Environment has been cut by well over a third since this government took office in 1993. The weight which the Department of the Environment has in cabinet today versus what it once had during the Jean Charest and the Tom MacMillan era may not be the same in terms of making sure that human health and the environment are protected.

It is also interesting to note that members of the Reform Party in committee supported the change that removed the old section 2.2. They also voted to amend the clause to read as it currently does in the biotech section. They supported amending the clause to read that the Minister of Environment and, where appropriate, the Minister of Health would make a decision. Now they seem to have changed their minds. They propose restoring the section to its original state.

Reform went along with this during the deliberations at committee because they believe in more political accountability, as do many members of parliament. The Progressive Conservative Party does as well. That is why they supported that initiative. They have now reverted to the preference of having it done by the governor in council for other reasons. This is more of a concern of Reform members not wanting to empower the ministers of health and the environment to be accountable and to make that the first priority above all others. I think we owe that to all citizens who live in this country and to future generations as well.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that its proposal would provide the public with an accountability mechanism for the ministers who make the decision as to which act better provides sufficient protection for the environment and human health. We also believe that our amendments provide an appropriate and necessary balance for the decision making process.

That is the issue I want to put forth with respect to the amendments that we have tabled in Group No. 3. It comes down to the issue of, if there is another act that comes into play, we definitely want to avoid duplication. We definitely want to avoid excess regulation. We want to do it in a capacity where health and the environment are the leads and the ministers will consult to ensure that the other minister has a fair say, as opposed to sending it to cabinet where we do not know who makes the decisions, why a decision was made and what matters were actually taken into play.

The bill is co-sponsored by the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment. They should be the quarterbacks. They should be the people who actually lead this omnibus bill, this pioneering bill, to quote the member for Davenport.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the principle legislation that controls the use of toxins within our environment. We should ensure that those two ministers take the lead and consult their teammates, the appropriate ministers. Sending it to cabinet tears apart the political accountability that all citizens of the country want to have from their government.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. This is the third and even the fourth time I speak on this bill.

I am pleased to speak on the third group of motions with respect to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Normally, one should expect a bill on environmental protection to emphasize the sacred trust of sustainable development. Needless to say that, today, nobody wants to go back to the days of unchecked development with an utter lack of respect for the environment and our nourishing earth.

However, we do not want to go to the other extreme and let our concern for environmental protection become a barrier to development.

That is one of the reasons why we object to the motions in Group No. 3 moved by the hon. members for Fundy—Royal and Nanaimo—Alberni, and the environment minister. In one case, I think we would go back to the days of unchecked development without much respect for the environment and, in the other, we would go to the other extreme, which might hinder development.

Since we are debating the motions in Group No. 3 at report stage of the bill, and there are eight groups of motions in all, I think it is important to note that this bill is quite different from the original one that was introduced in the House.

As a matter of fact, in committee only, the clause by clause examination of the bill required 60 sittings. Moreover, 580 amendments have been prepared on this bill and 160 of them have been adopted in committee.

I join my hon. colleagues from Davenport and Jonquière in decrying what I would call the contempt the government is showing for the work done in committees, since it is moving, at report stage, a whole new series of amendments which will further redesign and revamp a bill that has already been greatly tinkered with.

Unfortunately, this bill no longer makes any sense. Its original purpose has been lost in the countless amendments that have been moved. I think the committee might well have set a new record for the length of its clause by clause study of this bill.

At the outset, it is important to mention that we oppose the very paternalistic approach of the federal government, which claims that we need two security nets to better protect the environment.

The duplication the government is providing for in this environmental protection legislation will only help to establish additional environmental protection standards that will undermine economic development. These new standards will create more red tape, which means more headaches for all businesses and manufacturers throughout Canada and Quebec, who will now have to meet not one but two sets of environmental standards.

Besides, despite the fact that the environment is, under the Canadian Constitution the Liberals claim to hold so dear, supposed to be a shared jurisdiction, this bill shows that the government wants to make provincial governments its vassals in terms of decision making. This is totally unacceptable.

The bill even goes further. It goes so far to say that even if there were to be agreements between the federal government and provinces on certain environmental issues, the federal Ministers of Health and of the Environment, in their infinite wisdom, could ignore the agreements negotiated between the two levels of government.

As I said earlier, this is a totally unacceptable paternalism. Once again, “Ottawa knows best”. We can in no way approve such an attitude.

The new series of environmental standards the federal government could implement through this Environmental Protection Act will place Quebec in a difficult situation compared to other Canadian provinces. I will explain why.

If Ministers of Health and of the Environment decided, in their infinite wisdom, to implement a number of uniform standards to reduce toxic emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, throughout Canada, without taking into account the progress already made by each province, this would place Quebec in a very difficult position.

As we know, provinces like Alberta have been very negligent in recent years in terms of toxic emissions, of greenhouse gas emissions, while other provinces like Quebec have been much more vigilant in the last 10 to 15 years. The latter have implemented very strict environmental protection measures, with the result that in Quebec emissions may have been reduced by 10, 15, 20 or 25% in recent years.

If the federal government in its infinite wisdom—since it always knows more than anyone else about all issues relating to the environment—were to decide that we need to make an additional 5%, 6% or 7% reduction to industrial emissions, to toxic emissions in the atmosphere, under the agreements negotiated at Kyoto, on a uniform basis across Canada, this would be easily complied with by Alberta, where the emissions have increased in recent years. It would, however, be very difficult for Quebec, which has already reduced toxic emissions by 10%, 15%, 20% or 25%. The job has already been done.

In our respective political parties, in the companies or community organizations with which we may have been affiliated, we all know that the first $1,000 are very easy to collect in a fundraising campaign. It is the next $1,000 that are hard. This is a harder objective to attain.

Under the circumstances, the powers the federal government is taking onto itself for applying standards across Canada are liable to place the most environmentally active provinces, the most disciplined ones, in a terribly difficult position.

I need not point out to hon. members once again that we are totally opposed to the motions in Group No. 3. We are opposed to this bill, and we are, of course, going to oppose it with all the energy we can muster.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-32 which deal with animate products of biotechnology.

The essence of the Group No. 3 motions is to remove the powers of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health to give the governor in council the exclusive responsibility for decisions on animate projects of biotechnology. At a time when Canadians are asking more and more questions about the unknown factors of biotech and asking for further information and transparency, Motion No. 138 of the Liberal cabinet puts decisions on environment and health effectively behind closed doors, the governor in council doors.

When a lot of folks listening hear the term governor in council, I am sure they are wondering what it means. It is the executive arm of government. It is in effect cabinet. If this piece of legislation goes through, neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Minister of Health will be responsible for this area but rather it will be the governor in council. The entire cabinet will be responsible. There is an old saying that when everybody is in charge, no one is in charge. That is the fear we have with the particular piece of legislation before us this afternoon.

Canadians today are watching and listening to the news from around the world about a variety of biotechnology issues such as food labelling, biotech crops, genetics and cloning. They do not necessarily understand everything but they are certainly listening. They require some answers and they deserve some answers. I submit that only through public debate can misunderstanding and fear be addressed.

Throughout the world we are witnessing an exponential growth in the technology field. At the same time the international alarm bells are ringing and some people are even beginning to wonder if we are in fact going too far too fast in this area.

Canadians witnessed the recent debacle related to bovine growth hormone and the silencing of scientists at the health protection branch. Their concerns are shared by many across the country. The science and studies necessary to protect Canadians are based on cost recovery far too often. Cost recovery for whom? For industrial clients. As the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis asked earlier today in the debate, is the fox guarding the henhouse?

Canadians want to know how the promoter, this government, can also regulate against any possible harmful effects. The KPMG analysis done for the health protection branch mentions the need to consider the various industry and client interests. There is concern that there may be a conflict of interest bias, and Canadians certainly deserve an open and clear process.

There are calls for the government to rebalance the scale, to step back from the ardent proponent and remember that a balance is necessary to be struck on the side of public health and safety. The decision making must return to science, away from the political arena and backroom deals.

All of us as children spent some time on a teeter-totter. Some of us in political life still spend time on teeter-totters. What I remember about them is that the centre point of a teeter-totter is the fulcrum. If there is too much weight on one side it becomes unbalanced.

What is happening now on the teeter-totter of biotechnology is that we have industry and government on one side and the consumers are up in the air literally and figuratively on this issue. We need to have the government in the middle, in the fulcrum, so that there is a reasonable balance between industry and certain protection and assurances for the consumer.

Cross-pollination from modified crops to other crops has occurred and the question is could this cause problems. The process must be an open one. Can we expect the Liberal government to take a precautionary approach and err on the side of protection? A series of Liberal motions to weaken dramatically the precautionary principles suggests to us that we cannot.

Canadian farmers are becoming concerned about the issue. The potential loss of producer markets in Europe, and I will talk about those in a few minutes, presents additional concerns as well.

We certainly cannot lose sight of the success Canadian agriculture has achieved around the globe with specialty crops. We think of winter wheat, in particular, and the food delivered to less fortunate tables.

I am our caucus critic on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We all had the opportunity to travel to Washington this past February and had a good week of discussions on the future of agriculture.

One of the things that I recall from those discussions is that with 80 million new mouths to feed each and every year for the next 20 years food production will need to double throughout the world over the next 50 years, by the year 2050. It cannot be done, as it has been done in the past, by more irrigation and more development of arable lands. We simply do not have the capability. We recognize and scientists generally recognize that agricultural biotech will be the future for the millions of new mouths to be fed over the next half century.

We must ensure however that the best process for scientific review, analysis and monitoring is in place. It has to be based on science not on science fiction. Why can Canada not have the best, most open, highest scientific standards that ensure product safety for the environment and human health? An increasing number of Canadians are calling for food labelling to provide informed choices in their decision making.

I said I was going to talk very quickly about Europe. I want to note that following European labelling regulations, restaurants and fast food outlets in Britain have been ordered by the government to tell consumers if their meals contain genetically modified products. “People who are supplying food, whether it is in a shop or a restaurant, are really duty bound to know as much as they can about where the food came from before they offer it to the public”, said the food safety minister, Minister Rooker.

Genetically modified food is a hot political topic in Britain. The government says that it is confident genetically modified food is safe, but opinion polls show most consumers are anxious remembering similar early assurances before the mad cow crisis of a few years ago.

On this topic, recently the Western Producer had an editorial entitled “GMO familiarity may breed comfort”. I want to read a little of that editorial into my comments. It states:

One of the biggest debates surrounding genetically modified foods is whether they should carry an identifying label. In Europe in recent months, the issue has come to a head and the European Commission has instituted rules for labelling GMO foods.

There is a climate of growing public distrust in Europe. Denmark, Britain and France have all called a partial halt to GMO approvals, while Austria, Luxembourg and France have slapped unilateral bans on certain new crop strains.

The companies that have created genetically modified seeds are generally against mandatory labelling.

They say that if there is no real nutritional or health difference between altered and regular food, why should GMO products be singled out? It could be viewed not as information but as a warning.

As I have noted, and the editorial notes:

Many consumer groups say that for the public to make an informed decision, products must be labelled.

Last year AgBioForum , a quarterly on-line magazine devoted to agricultural biotechnology, tackled the issue.

The contributors, mainly academics at Canadian and American universities, argue that labelling, especially if voluntary, could build acceptance for agricultural technology.

To conclude the editorial, it further states:

Companies with products made from GMO foods might do well to institute voluntary labelling. Although they might take some heat in the short-term, in the long-term they will familiarize the population with the benefits of the science.

And the process should become easier as researchers move from the first wave of bio-tech crops, which were directed at giving farmers more options, to products directed at consumer needs like lower fat levels and higher protein.

To wrap up, how can well-informed consumer decisions be made if the entire process is clouded and under a veil of secrecy? Shutting out environment and health ministers and placing critical decisions behind closed doors with the governor in council sends a wrong message to Canadians. What is this government trying to hide? Why limit the safety net in the decision making process if everything is above board?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the second time to address Bill C-32, which replaces the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly referred to as CEPA in environmental and parliamentary parlance.

Our position on Bill C-32 and on the legislation passed by this parliament, and the position developed by Quebec are not new. My Bloc Quebecois colleagues stated it a number of times since the beginning of this debate: we are clearly opposed to this bill.

It is important to explain why we are opposed to Bill C-32. Let us not forget the stand taken many times in the past by the Quebec government regarding the protection of the environment.

Let us not forget January 29, 1998. Let us not forget that important date for Quebec, when the Quebec government, through its Minister of the Environment, Claude Bégin, decided not to sign the proposed environmental harmonization agreement. It was supposed, in principle—and I emphasize the word “principle”—to reduce duplication and overlap, and to respect the exclusive or primary jurisdictions of the provinces under the Canadian Constitution.

I am referring to the spirit of harmonization because essentially the content of that agreement was far from respecting the principle stated a few months earlier by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Through its government, Quebec has said loud and clear that it will sign the environmental harmonization agreement the day this agreement will actually permit—not only in principle but in actual fact—the elimination of overlap and duplication, and include the recognition of Quebec's exclusive or at least primary jurisdiction in the areas assigned to the provinces under the Constitution.

It is important to remember these facts because they explain the Bloc Quebecois' position on Bill C-23. If the federal government had respected the spirit of the harmonization agreement, we might have supported Bill C-23, but the problem is that every time an environment minister sets out to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in this parliament, he takes the opportunity to interfere in areas of provincial responsibility and increase duplication and overlap.

The renewal of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act did not start yesterday. On December 15, 1995, the Liberal government proposed revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The proposal by the Minister of the Environment at the time was the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “It's About our Health—Towards Pollution Prevention”.

This report set out the broad lines of a proposal to renew the federal government's main legislative measure on environmental protection.

At the time, the Bloc Quebecois, which opposed the bill, denounced the fact that most of the recommendations supported the centralizing tendency of the federal government in environmental protection matters. As my colleague for Verchères—Les-Patriotes mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois refutes the theory of the double safety net and contends that the environment would be better served if responsibility for its protection were given to one level of government only.

The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that the provinces, including Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude significant agreements with national and international partners and have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.

Our vision is shared by many experts studying how federations work. As Barry Rabe, a researcher from the United States, stated in the 1997 Fall issue of the scientific magazine Canadian Public Administration , and I quote:

For the most part, literature on environmental federalism shows decentralization in an extremely favourable light.

Bill C-32 is not part of a decentralizing approach. It renews the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has been so vigorously opposed by the various governments of Quebec. In the last parliament, the Liberal government attempted to get the previous version of this bill passed, but gave up the attempt in light of the huge outcry, which could have jeopardized the upcoming elections.

As the House will recall, Bill C-74 died on the Order Paper during the last session. But CEPA provides for a five-year review, which is already overdue, as the government backslides and introduces another bill holding to the national vision that still does not sit well with members of the National Assembly.

With this bill, pollution prevention becomes a national goal. This is the second whereas in the preamble. The government wants to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act by amending certain technical provisions, but keeping the essence of the centralizing vision of environmental protection.

The bill contains provisions dealing primarily with pollution prevention, the establishment of new methods of reviewing and evaluating substances, and the creation of obligations with respect to substances that the environment and health ministers consider toxic.

The list of these substances is extensive. There are new powers and new dispute regulation mechanisms for investigators. This bill gives investigators new powers. But it does not give them new resources for doing their work. That is what is ironic. We are given a stronger, more robust CEPA, an act with more teeth, but the Minister of Finance is still refusing additional funds to enable officials to take action.

It is a no go. We cannot protect the environment without resources. Now is the time to realize this. In a few weeks, I will have an opportunity to perhaps meet again with my former colleagues in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and say no to Bill C-32, because it is still predicated on centralization, which Quebec cannot accept.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-32. However, I am sad at the same time, because we need only think—and I know whereof I speak—of the federal government's miserable performance at managing the environment for many years now.

I can give you striking examples from my riding. I was a municipal councillor for four terms over a period of 14 years, and God knows how many times we had to deal with the federal government, on the matter of the erosion of river banks for example.

In the town where I served as councillor, there are four beaches and I can name them for you: going from west to east there are the Monagan, Ferguson, Routhier and Lévesque beaches.

They are fine beaches and have a fine shoreline. People worked very hard building houses, clearing an area where they could enjoy life and resorts would flourish. Through dredging and other operations by the federal government, by rockfilling, they affected the tide. It destroyed roads, infrastructures and houses.

There is another fact I remember very clearly. In the fall 1994, I asked for a meeting with officials from Environment Canada and representatives of the Sept-Îles airport, which was held at the airport. At that point, I warned the airport authorities that the product used to de-ice airport runways was noxious and contaminating the soil. There were serious consequences.

The airport is on a cliff. The Routhier and Lévesque beaches lie just below. I warned them that they were polluting the water table. Four years later, after various tests were done, the Department of Transport acknowledged that, by using the material they spread on the runways to de-ice them, they had polluted the soil, that they were responsible. They contaminated the water table, they contaminated the sources of drinking water the public had invested in, had created.

For the last two years, the solution has been to provide people with bottled water. I personally asked questions in the House to hurry the Minister of Transport into finding an appropriate solution. Indeed, the solution is quite simply to extend the Sept-Îles pipeline to bring drinking water from downtown to that population.

I have met with Health Canada officials and a medical officer of the Quebec health ministry, who have told me that the most dangerous thing is not to drink water, since our body can eliminate it. Actually, the most dangerous thing is to take a shower or a bath in contaminated water because skin pores cannot eliminate it. Mothers are forced to bath their babies in bottled water, which is totally ridiculous.

We ask the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment to take action. Public health is at stake. This is an environmental issue. It seems as though this government could not care less about the health of people, allowing issues as important as this one to go unresolved.

Here is another example. During the night of March 22 to 23, an ore carrier, the Gordon C. Leitch , collided with a wharf at Havre-Saint-Pierre and spilled more than 40,000 tons of fuel in the waters of one of the most prized attractions of my riding, the Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve.

Hundreds of birds were contaminated and nearly 80% had to be put down. New traces of fuel are now showing up as ice melts. Incalculable damage has been caused to this extremely fragile ecosystem.

Ridiculous as it may seem, the environment minister never made any commitment to the people of the Minganie area concerning what she could do or should have done most urgently, despite the representations and letters from the people. She had the responsibility to reassure the residents of the archipelago, these pioneers who have worked so hard over the years. She should have done something then to protect the archipelago in which they have put so much work because it is a unique tourist attraction.

When we talk about the people in the Minganie area, we talk about the Mingan archipelago. We also talk about the people in Havre-Saint-Pierre, Sheldrake, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Rivière-au-Tonnerre, Baie-Johan-Beetz, Aguanish, and Natashquan.

All these people have been working very hard to develop this archipelago of which they are so proud, and which is also an economic asset because it is a great tourist attraction. The minister never did anything. She never bothered taking serious measures to solve the problem and clean up the oil slick that was spilled on that night in March.

Let me remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois moved the following motions at report stage. One was to remove the paragraph in the preamble dealing with the establishment of national environmental standards, and environmental quality guidelines and codes of practice. Without those changes, since the environment is not an exclusively federal jurisdiction, this sub-clause was unacceptable to us.

We also want to remove the paragraph of the preamble where reference is made to the presence of toxic substances, which is a matter of national interest. Once again, the federal government is looking for an excuse to meddle in the environment from coast to coast.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling upon the federal government to amend the preamble so that Quebec may speak for itself internationally when its interests are at stake, particularly in the areas of culture, education, health and the environment. The federal government boasts about recognizing Quebec's distinct nature. It should let us speak for ourselves when our interests are at stake.

In clause 2, we wish to delete the words “endeavour to” in reference to the federal government's acting in co-operation with the provinces. In our opinion, the federal government must always act in co-operation with the provinces, and with their approval. The use of “endeavour to” gives the federal government a loophole we do not wish it to have.

We are calling on the federal government to do away with the matter of uniform environmental standards from coast to coast, because this ignores our specific situation. Here again, we want the words “endeavour to” deleted in order to have assurance that the federal government will act within the spirit of the intergovernmental agreements on the environment concluded with the provinces. This amendment eliminates the federal loophole.

Finally, I would point out that we are proposing the same amendment several times, requiring the federal government to obtain provincial approval when assigning the power to adopt regulations and implement legislation. The federal government must obtain provincial approval when adopting regulations relating to the environment.

For all of these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois, including the member for Manicouagan of course, will be voting against Bill C-32.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motions Group No. 3, which deal with toxic substances.

One could certainly talk at length about what is going on with toxic substances at the federal level. However, before trying to give teeth to this bill, I think we should first look at what the federal government has done in the past regarding toxic substances.

We need only think of the Irving Whale , the wreck that lay on the ocean floor off the Magdalen Islands for years before the federal government finally decided to raise it. However, 90% of the PCBs on board seeped out and nothing was done to recover them.

The government did not do everything it should have. It was very important to raise the wreck because there was a major risk that all the oil could have been spilled. Everything was done so fast and without any consideration for the possibility that the BPCs could seep out that eventually 90% of these substances were spilled. We do not know the extent of the damages, nor the middle and long term effects, and nothing is being done to correct the situation. As far as the government is concerned, the problem has been dealt with and that is the end of the matter.

However, there could be a very significant impact on marine wildlife, shellfish and fish in that region, and 10 years from now we will be told “Yes, there are problems. We will have to conduct more studies and stop fishing. There are problems with marine wildlife in that region”. Once again, this will be because the government has not taken its responsibilities.

There is also the famous Irving Oil Limited, which, as members know, is a very powerful company in Canada. In fact, it does not even pay taxes here, because of a promise made by children to their parents. That company is responsible for the Irving Whale disaster, and the government could easily have made sure that Irving foot the bill, instead of making the taxpayers pay once again.

This is just one case involving toxic substances where the government did not go as far as it should have. This will come back to haunt us in the years to come. There will be problems because of these PCBs that remained at the bottom of the ocean. We will then realize that something should have been done, but it will be too late.

Another important issue relating to toxic substances is the use of MMT. The government tabled a bill to ban the use of MMT in gasoline. At the time, we fought against that legislation and asked the government to conduct a very simple study to determine whether MMT is indeed a toxic substance. There is still no evidence to that effect. On the contrary, there is evidence that using MMT in gas is a good thing and that, in some way, it protects the environment.

Until a solution is found, we will be faced with the same problem. We would love to get rid of greenhouse gases and everything else that is toxic. But right now there is no proof that MMT is a toxic substance.

We therefore asked the government to do a study. It has not been done. Once again, our recommendations have been ignored. Now I hear that the government wants to reintroduce the same bill to ban MMT. My impression is that something is getting in the way, because precious time is being wasted. Let us do things properly, as they were done in the case of the Irving Whale and MMT, commission a public or private study, it does not matter which, and convince people—and convince me—that MMT is a toxic substance and we will react accordingly.

But this has still not been done. In fact, the company recently won a court case and is still allowed to use MMT.

All this is costing a lot of money. And to what end? To indulge in petty politics, keep a few friends of the party happy, make the government look good?

This is not how the environment works. I am sorry, but the environment is our future, the future of our children and of our grandchildren. The government must invest in that future now, and it must do so in a concrete and logical way, consistent with what is now taking place in the provinces. We already have environmental legislation.

Another example is that of environmental assessments. This bill was passed in the House during our last term of office. It is still very contentious. There is a case before the courts involving Quebec and the federal government.

Quebec has the BAPE, which is an agency that does environmental assessments and ensures that any proposals meet Quebec's environmental standards.

Now, the federal government is duplicating and overlapping what is already being done in Quebec. For example, an entrepreneur who wishes to develop a project of some sort has to submit to a battery of studies. He has to apply to the BAPE and hope he meets the necessary standards. If the federal government then steps in and says that it is not happy and the process must start all over again, costs are doubled. An entrepreneur will probably go under, or close to it, because these things can take years to resolve. Environmental lawyers will have an opportunity to make a lot of money.

I can assure members that with the entire bill before us now, if provincial jurisdictions are not respected, serious problems will occur. The only thing the government will be able to brag about is that it gave environmental lawyers the opportunity to make a lot of money.

Common sense must prevail in all this. I agree that the environment absolutely must be protected, but I also agree that common sense must prevail. Agreements must be made between the federal government and the provinces, because there are some provinces that are doing their part. Perhaps there are some that are not, but I do not want Quebec to be penalized because the federal government has decided to put everyone in the same boat.

I am sorry, but this is not the way things work. We brought forward some amendments. I would ask the government to consider them carefully, to ensure that somewhere there will be some harmonization, some agreement.

Finally, instead of quarrelling about which level is responsible for the environment, I say that everyone should be responsible for it in a normal fashion, in an appropriate manner, without constantly quarrelling and going before the supreme court, before the Quebec court, for decisions that will take years and that will not help the environment in the least. Quite the contrary, this will delay all the work that should be done now.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, motions in Group No. 3 are deemed put, the recorded divisions are deemed demanded and deemed deferred.

The House will now move on to the motions in Group No. 4.

Pursuant to order made earlier this days the motions in Group No. 4 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 47.

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 3 with the following:

“postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environ-”

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

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 3 with the following:

“postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environ-”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 3 with the following:

“(a.1) take cost-effective preventive and remedial mea-”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 4 with the following:

“coordinated and cost-effective manner; and

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 14 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(m) and (n), if this Act does not provide for the avoidance of duplication where measures can be taken under this Act and under another Act of Parliament to address a matter affecting the environment or human health, the Minister, the Minister of Health where appropriate, and the minister responsible for the other Act will jointly determine whether the measures that can be taken under the other Act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter.”

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 5 the following:

“aboriginal people” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 9 the following:

“hormone disrupting substance” means a substance having the ability to disrupt the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action or elimination of natural hormones in an organism, or its progeny, that are responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis, reproduction, development or behaviour of the organism.”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 9 the following:

“recyclable material” means any material or aggregate of materials that, at any particular time and place, has use or value.”

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 10 the following:

““waste” means any solid, liquid or gaseous material or materials or a combination of them, discarded or intended to be discarded as useless and valueless, but excludes recyclable material.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-32, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 30 with the following:

“respecting the cost-effective use of the powers provided for”

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to direct my comments specifically to this group, I would like to identify that the government amendments in this section are restricted to administrative duties.

Specifically, the government response to the standing committee report on CEPA committed to using the version of the precautionary principle agreed to by Canada and the nations of the world during the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro.

Motion No. 8 by the government seeks to ensure that the statement of the precautionary principle in the administrative duty section is consistent with the Rio version. The government has put precautionary principle into the body of the legislation, strengthening our government's commitment to take precautionary measures and putting the environment and health of Canadians first, even in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Specific to the other motions that are in this group, the Reform motions seek to reverse the standing committee amendments that deleted cost effective elsewhere in the bill. The government would like to see those remain deleted. Furthermore, we are not in support of the Reform Party's motion to restore the residual clause 2(2), which is one of the motions before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House one more time today. I am very happy. It is not very often that I speak so often in one day.

Bill C-32 is very important. It is very important for Quebec because we have our own environmental legislation. We have been a leader in this area, and the federal government now wants to appropriate the good things we have done in Quebec.

In Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 8 and 10 deal with cost-effective measures. We had a lengthy debate on the word cost-effective in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and we noted that it was not clearly defined. We decided to take it out. Now I see that Motions Nos. 8 and 10 propose that the word be reintroduced.

I do not know if people did their job in the standing committee, to at least try to have this bill make some sense. We see today that the motions brought forward by the government, the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party deal with things that were already done by the standing committee.

These things were debated, maybe not from the same point of view, since the same amendments could not be brought forward in the House, but from a similar one.

The closer we get to the end of consideration of this bill, the more I realize this issue is not being taken very seriously.

With this bill, the federal government is again trying to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. As my colleague was saying earlier, let us leave these things in the hands of those who have jurisdiction over them.

I think the government wants to undermine the authority of the provincial governments, which have developed some expertise through agreements with municipalities, industries, individuals and environmental groups. They have ensured that some progress can finally be made in terms of the environment.

Why take a step backward when we can move forward? With this bill, the government not only takes a step backward, but it prevents the environment from being the focus of concern for the current and future generations.

What we have before us today is not a progressive, but rather a regressive piece of legislation. It is regressive in its concrete measures, in its vision for the future and in the bad image it gives the world of Canada, because of our poor performance. Nothing in this bill will help us become visionary environmental leaders.

We made some commitments in Kyoto. I do not think the government has been able to meet them, quite the opposite, in fact. With the bill before the House, we will fall behind in our commitments. Why? Because, for the time being, there is no co-ordination between the various departments dealing in one way or another with the environment in Canada, like Health Canada and Environment Canada, for instance. As the commissioner of the environment said, we are once again quarrelling.

And what happens when people quarrel? They are unable to move forward. I do not believe this bill will be beneficial to endangered species, water and other matters of interest to our generation and future generations. We should be concerned about that.

Today, we witnessed a historic event: a woman from Quebec went up into space. This bill, however, won't make history. I believe we could have done better.

The Bloc Quebecois wanted to move things ahead. However, this government is not doing what it should. It says it will invest millions of dollars here and there for studies and so on. This is not what people want. They do not want studies, they want action, but this government does not know the meaning of the word. We always hear the same old story.

This government is like a dog chasing its tail. This is unfortunate because nowadays no one can ignore environmental issues. This government was elected to run the country, and it is not doing its duty. It does not act, whether it be on the issue of importing or exporting toxic substances or on any other environmental issue. It is as if they had hit the wall. They seem to be living in a virtual world. Everything that deals with the environment seems to be nebulous. We have to tell them that all environmental issues are actually part of our everyday life.

I would not like to be in their shoes tomorrow when people tell them “What did you do? You had the power to make decisions for our children and our grand-children but you did nothing”. We cannot look back. We must look to the future. We can build on past experience, but we cannot go back in time.

I believe very strongly in the future, but this government has no hope. It has no hope now and will have none in the future. As the hon. member for Davenport said, it is important.

It is very important for me, for the hon. member for Davenport, and for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. For us in the Bloc Quebecois, it is very important. I realize we missed the boat. When we miss the boat, it is very hard to move forward.

I hope the government will think it over before the bill is put to a vote, and consider the amendments introduced by the Bloc Quebecois and those by the Reform Party. Some, not many, are forward-looking.

I ask government members to search their soul and take a positive view of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments. I ask them to see to it that this bill benefits future generations.