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.