Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are 10 amendments in Group No. 4 which deal with several issues. One of the issues is cost effectiveness.
Motion No. 9 proposes to amend the bill to reinsert cost effectiveness into the definition of the precautionary principle. The internationally accepted definition of the precautionary principle was endorsed in Rio by over 150 countries including Canada. This Rio definition of sustainable development states the following:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
This definition is now clearly recognized as a fundamental tenet of international environmental law. The government response stated that this definition of the precautionary principle would be incorporated into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
When Bill C-32 was tabled in the House the Rio definition of sustainable development including cost effectiveness was included in the bill. However, when the bill went to the standing committee some committee members voted to change this internationally accepted definition by removing all references to cost effectiveness.
Dropping cost effectiveness from the precautionary principle will cause major problems for the future for both government and industry. Industry must be able to implement sustainable development measures and remain competitive and profitable.
Our approach to the environment must be balanced. We need a strong and health economy to take concrete action to protect our environment. These two work hand in hand. Simply put, if the money is not there, we cannot and will not take action.
When there is no scientific certainty, which occurs in many cases and is the essence of many voluntary agreements and MOUs which the government has signed with industry, industry will take cost effective actions to protect the environment. However when science provides a clearer picture and demonstrates that damage can occur then more onerous measures are considered and will be applied.
The precautionary principle allows Canadians to proceed with caution in the interim phase. However when we eliminate cost effectiveness from the equation it is likely that we will lose the voluntary commitment of industry, which is critical to the continued protection of the environment.
One of the reasons Reform opposed Bill C-74 in the last parliament was the fact that the old CEPA bill would have made it too difficult and costly for industry to implement realistically. This is not a question of industry or the environment. It is a question of what is in the best interest of all Canadians. The environment is not a black or white issue. It is grey. Protecting the environment affects all Canadians.
I am pleased to note that the government supports our position on sustainable development and has proposed an identical amendment to Reform Motion No. 9 with Liberal Motion No. 8. However I am concerned that the government has failed to reinsert references to cost effectiveness that were contained throughout the bill when it was originally tabled in the House. These sections were critical to the delicate balance which was struck when the government consulted with industry and environment to draft Bill C-32.
When Bill C-32 was originally tabled in the House cost effectiveness was incorporated into a number of sections of the bill including administrative duties, information gathering provisions and pollution prevention planning. Some members of the standing committee voted to eliminate these sections on cost effectiveness from the bill. These amendments will not promote greater environmental action or attention. They will not create greater financial resources for government and industry to take action because Canadians simply do not have the means to take action beyond what is reasonable and cost effective.
In fact these amendments to the act may backfire by creating a reluctance for partners to sign agreements that are neither cost effective nor realistic. Without these amendments chances are that we will see less, not more action.
Our Motions Nos. 10, 16 and 47 in this group propose to address this concern by reinserting cost effectiveness into the bill. Bill C-32 must integrate the principles of sustainable development including environmental, economic and social considerations.
Moving through this group of amendments, our Motion No. 18 contained within this group proposes to eliminate a new section in the bill that was added in committee. The section which we are proposing to eliminate simply makes little sense and opens the bill to gross misinterpretation. This sections states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the taking of any action to protect the environment or human health for the purposes of this Act.
This is simply far too open ended. Our amendment proposes to reinstate the original clause put forward by the government when Bill C-32 was tabled in the House more than a year ago. The original section provided legal direction as to which legislation would take precedence if there were a duplication between acts which provide for the protection of the environment and human health. When this section was removed it eliminated the decision making mechanism from the act.
As well, Motion No. 22 in this grouping put forward by the NDP proposes to integrate a new definition of hormone disrupting substances into the definitions of the act. We will not support this amendment as the proposed definition of hormone disrupting substances is inconsistent with the internationally accepted working definition originally proposed in the legislation. The internationally accepted definition is:
Hormone disrupting substance means an exogenous substance that causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, consequent to changes in endocrine function.
We have put this definition of hormone disrupting substances forward in our amendments to the bill and therefore will not support Motion No. 22.
Motion No. 23, also put forward by the NDP, proposes a definition of recyclable material in the interpretation section of the act. The proposed definition reads:
Recyclable material means any material or aggregate of materials that, at any particular time and place, has use or value”.
Anything can be interpreted as having use or value. This definition of recyclable material is clearly unacceptable. It is too broad and open to be interpreted as meaning any thing or any substance.
Motion No. 24 also proposes a new definition in the act where it proposes to introduce a definition of waste. The proposal was to define waste as 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. Similar to Motion No. 23, the proposed definition is far too vague and far to open-ended. Such definitions are redundant as they serve absolutely no purpose when they are so open to interpretation. These amendments serve little purpose in fulfilling what is the intended mandate of the legislation.
We do not support amendments to the bill which extend the application of the bill to deal with all waste, particularly when dealing with exports. Our amendments to the bill propose that the section of the bill dealing with export of hazardous waste be limited to just that.
There is one item from this group of amendments that must be addressed and that is the inclusion of cost-effectiveness throughout the bill. I believe this is critical and hope members from all sides of the House will give this issue serious consideration before voting.