Debates of May 31st, 1999

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-32, in Clause 116, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 87 the following:

«substance à effet de perturbation du système hormonal» ““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.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-32, in Clause 118, be amended a ) by replacing line 1 on page 88 with the following:

“118. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the” b ) by adding after line 32 on page 88 the following:

“(2) The Governor in Council shall not make a regulation under this Division in respect of nutrients if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the regulation regulates an aspect of nutrients that is regulated by or under any other Act of Parliament in a manner that provides, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, sufficient protection to the environment and human health.”

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-32, in Clause 118, be amended a ) by replacing line 1 on page 88 with the following:

“118. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the” b ) by replacing, in the English version, line 8 on page 88 with the following:

“of a process of degrading or altering, an” c ) by adding after line 32 on page 88 the following:

“(2) The Governor in Council shall not make a regulation under subsection (1) in respect of a nutrient to the extent that the nutrient, or a product in which the nutrient is contained, is, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, regulated by or under any other Act of Parliament in a manner that provides, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, sufficient protection to the environment.”

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-32, in Clause 166, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 121 with the following: a ) on approval by the Governor in Council, publish a notice under subsection 56(1);”

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

moved:

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-32, in Clause 166, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 121 with the following: a ) with the approval of the Governor in Council, publish a notice under subsection 56(1);”

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

moved:

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-32, in Clause 166, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 121 with the following: a ) recommend to the Governor in Council that the Minister be given authority to publish a notice under subsection 56(1)”

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-32, in Clause 176, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 20 on page 128 with the following:

“laws or does not do so, the Minister shall recommend regulations to the Governor”

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

moved:

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-32, in Clause 176, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 128 with the following: a ) with the approval of the Governor in Council, publish a notice under subsection 56(1);”

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-32, in Clause 176, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 128 with the following: a ) on approval by the Governor in Council, publish a notice under subsection 56(1);”

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

moved:

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-32, in Clause 176, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 128 with the following: a ) recommend to the Governor in Council that the Minister be given authority to publish a notice under subsection 56(1);”

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

moved:

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-32, in Clause 185, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 134 the following:

“(1.1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, exempt from the application of subsection (1) any person who imports into, exports to or conveys in transit to a province substances described in subsection (1) where an Act of the legislature of the province is in force that governs the movement of such substances.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-32, in Clause 188, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 136 with the following:

“phasing out the export, to a destination other than the United States, of hazardous waste or”

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

moved:

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-32, in Clause 188, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 136 with the following:

“phasing out the export of hazardous waste for final”

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-32, in Clause 188, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 136 with the following:

“disposal to a destination other than the United States, the Minister may require an export-”

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will address very briefly Motions Nos. 185 and 193, and then the motion on nutrients, and put these reservations forward for your attention.

The amendments regarding international air and water pollution again would require the Minister of the Environment to go to cabinet before making a decision on the subject of international air and water pollution or pollution that may result in another country because of activities in Canada.

These motions require the environment minister to go to cabinet before requiring a person to prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan, yet pollution prevention is in the title of this legislation. Therefore, one would expect that powers would be included in the bill for the health and environment ministers to request plans in serious cases of possible pollution.

International pollution is clearly a role for the federal Minister of the Environment, which one would expect industry to support considering industry's claims in favour of pollution prevention planning. Why then does industry lobby for a further obstacle and delay? Why does industry lobby for imposing a further delay on this rather important step?

The official government explanation for this last minute change to remove this power from the minister and give it to the cabinet is that these changes are there because they are normal, given the international dimension of these issues. The government explanation goes on to say that the involvement of the governor in council, namely cabinet, is normal.

Who raised this concern? It was the lobby groups representing chemical production, petroleum, steel and other industries. We have several letters from these groups asking for this amendment, almost word for word.

Second, putting this power squarely in the hands of the federal environment minister should not be described as unilateral, as some have done. Rather, it is a necessary ministerial power.

Third, the involvement of cabinet in a new measure in Bill C-32, namely, the power of the environment minister to require a person to prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan under certain circumstances, cannot be explained as normal. It is clearly the role of the Minister of the Environment to take preventive actions. Where there is a case of a potential Canadian source polluting United States air or water, citizens of the other country would expect prompt action to be taken to prevent that pollution. Motions Nos. 185 and 193 will eliminate the possibility of prompt preventive action by the Minister of the Environment and send the decision to cabinet where other ministers hold diverging views. It is difficult to see why such discussions are necessary unless the objective is to create delays and possibly bring considerations other than the protection of the environment and human health to the table.

It is important to note in the context of Motions Nos. 185 and 193 that these proposals were not made during the long and detailed study in committee. It should also be noted that these motions were requested by industry lobby groups in the weeks following our committee study and deliberations. Finally, it should be noted that the Reform Party has proposed amendments similar to Motions Nos. 185 and 193.

For all of these reasons, regretfully, I will have to vote against these two motions.

On the question of nutrients, Motion No. 154 comes like a bolt from the blue. It is brand new. It was not mentioned. It was not proposed in committee. It was not proposed by any witness before the committee nor in the clause by clause deliberations. Yet it has appeared in the name of the Minister of the Environment. A very similar amendment miraculously appeared in the name of the Reform Party as well.

The effect of the amendment, if passed, would be this. As an example, the Minister of the Environment could no longer prevent the pollution of water by certain nutrients. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could say “I have the power to prevent pollution by nutrients in water”. Cabinet would then decide if the power of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was sufficient. The Minister of the Environment would no longer have a role to play. The public would have no knowledge of how this decision came about because, as we all know, cabinet discussions and decisions are secret.

Who would decide whether the regulations which fall under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food provide sufficient protection? In the case of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, for example, his mandate is at best a mixed mandate, namely, promoting food production, farmers' interests, the protection of soil and, at the same time, promoting the industries that produce pesticides, fertilizers and nutrients. On whose side will the minister be?

To put it in other terms, in this case and in other parts of Bill C-32 that the committee did not succeed in amending, there is pattern. The pattern is that ministers, who do not have as their chief mandate the protection of the environment and human health, have sufficient powers to decide: one, what is sufficient protection of the environment and human health and what it means, and two, whether a certain standard provided in the regulations of a minister, other than the Minister of the Environment, is the determining and final factor.

Unfortunately, this amendment will have the net effect of giving powers to a minister, other than the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Health, to make a decision as to what is sufficient protection.

That is an example of how this bill is being weakened at report stage. It is a very regrettable development because in the end it will be at the expense of public health and the quality of water and air. I hope it is not proceeded with at report stage tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise following the member for Davenport. Group No. 7 contains 15 motions.

I will summarize the position of the Bloc Quebecois with respect to these motions. We oppose Motion No. 53 by the member for Nanaimo—Alberni, which concerns clause 56 and deals with the requirement for pollution prevention plans.

With Motion No. 53, and Motion No. 153 to amend clause 118, the Reform Party is transferring to the governor in council the responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment in the publication of notices to implement a prevention plan for a substance or a group of substances.

Once again, with these amendments, the Reform Party is attempting to limit the action of the Minister of the Environment in matters concerning the environment.

I will now address Motion No. 187, which also originates with the Reform Party and seeks to amend clause 166 of the current bill, dealing with international air pollution. We oppose this motion. We also oppose Motion No. 191, which concerns clause 176 on international water pollution.

With these motions, the Reform Party is once again trying to put the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment in the hands of the governor in council. I share the view of the member for Davenport, who opposes this practice, since we know that Cabinet proceedings are kept secret.

When we ask this government, or other governments that will succeed it, I hope, in the future, “Why”, they will say “We cannot answer you. This is a matter for Cabinet and it is confidential and secret”.

I am surprised to see the Reform Party doing this. I would had never thought that it would go so far in order to fight the powers that a minister responsible for a matter must have with respect to pollution, which affects such vital areas.

There is also Motions Nos. 201, 202 and 203 with respect to clause 188, also moved by a member of the Reform Party, which would remove the words “non-hazardous waste” from the plan for reducing imports and which excludes waste exported from the United States. Yet, we know that the vast majority of our export trade is with the United States.

It is essential that there be a plan for compliance with the regulations and that it be enforced. What is going on? Are people going to be allowed to do as they please with hazardous waste? Are they going to import and export such waste freely, because nobody will be required to have plans and regulations any more? It will be anarchy. Is that what the Reform Party member wants? I object and I hope that all members of the House will object.

I turn now to Motion No. 151 moved by the NDP member for Churchill River to amend clause 116 with respect to nutrients by adding “hormone disrupting substance”. Clause 43 already defines hormone disrupting substance. Why have redundancy within the bill? There is enough confusion as it is. I can understand why this would be interesting for people in the legal profession. This bill will no doubt lead to lawsuits.

I am going to speak about Motion No. 154, with respect to clause 118, and Motion No. 185 with respect to clause 116, moved by the Minister of the Environment. They are along the same lines as the motions moved by the Reform Party member. I cannot understand why the Minister of the Environment is bringing in amendments that will limit her powers. This one will take away her own power to act under the legislation.

She is limiting her actions and, on top of that, she is asking for the agreement of the governor in council and recommending that he give her permission. My goodness, this motion is more than just nebulous, it is unacceptable.

Let us also look at Motion No. 186 with respect to clause 166. We are also opposed to this motion, because it goes along the same lines as the one I have just addressed. It puts the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment onto the governor in council.

Then there is Motion No. 192 to amend clause 176. This amendment would have the minister report to governor in council. It being along the same lines, we also object to it.

We presented Motion No. 198 to amend clause 185 as an addition to the section on import, export and movement of hazardous waste and other substances. We want a sub-clause (1.1) to be added, which would read as follows:

—exempt from the application of subsection (1) any person who imports into, exports to or conveys in transit to a province substances described in subsection (1) where an act of the legislature of the province is in force that governs the movement of such substances.

This motion would do away with the duplication in the application of this provision and would do away with all the confusion for people, who do not know whether the federal or the provincial legislation applies. We have plenty of duplication already. Enough, now some very positive action must be taken.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a number of points have been raised in speaking to this group of motions and comments earlier.

I want to draw members' attention to the fact that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was a position created by the government in 1995. It was mentioned by one of the NDP members that government after government has been ignoring the recommendations of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. That position was created by the government.

Criticisms of the commissioner laid against the government for its actions are addressed in this bill. If that is the concern, members should support Bill C-32. Twenty three thousand substances must be examined. There are strict time lines in the CEPA legislation. Pollution prevention is enshrined in the legislation. This is what the commissioner told us; this is what the bill is doing.

Let us talk about some other motions before us at the present time. The BQ want to exempt waste provisions from Bill C-32 from applying to the provinces that have legislation governing the movement of waste. Once again the Bloc Quebecois is attempting to rewrite the Constitution by stripping the federal government's jurisdiction over Canada's international borders and interprovincial trade. Canada has international commitments under the Basel convention relating to the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Bill C-32 is necessary to ensure that Canada meets those obligations.

PC and Reform motions have been proposed to exclude shipments of waste destined for disposal, including hazardous waste, to the United States from requirements for export reduction plans. Let us be clear. Bill C-32 provides the authority to require exporters of waste that is being shipped for disposal to prepare and implement export reduction plans. The PC and Reform parties want to exempt any shipments to the United States from these requirements. The fact is that Canada since 1985 has not shipped hazardous waste for disposal to any country other than the United States. The PC and Reform Party motions therefore would nullify this authority.

This means that Canada would not be able to meet its obligations under the Basel convention. It also contradicts the pollution prevention principle, the thrust of this bill. We do want to prevent pollution and the generation of waste so it does not have to be shipped to the United States.

One of the motions before us today is a regulation rollover motion, Motion No. 233. There are 24 regulations under the existing CEPA. These regulations cover a wide variety of toxic substances and pollutants. They have eliminated the use of lead in gasoline. They have banned substances from the earth's ozone layer such as CFCs. They have reduced by 99% the amount of harmful dioxins and furans in pulp and paper effluent. These are good things.

To proclaim the new act into force all these regulations would have to conform to the provisions of Bill C-32. The government is working on this task to ensure early proclamation following royal assent of this legislation.

To address unforeseen circumstances that might delay the rollover of the regulations or that would create a regulatory gap, government Motion No. 233 proposes the addition of a clause that would allow any provisions of the regulations inconsistent with Bill C-32 to continue in force for two years from the date of royal assent.

Let us talk about PC Motion No. 214 to alter the residual clause in part 9. Let us be clear. Provincial government environmental regulations do not apply to the federal government. Because of this situation CEPA provides authority to regulate federal operations and lands. One of the shortcomings of the existing CEPA identified by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in its 1995 report “It's About Our Health!” is that environmental protection regulations that apply to the federal House require the concurrence of the affected minister.

As a result of this requirement for concurrence, the amount of activity under this part of CEPA has been limited. Bill C-32 removes this requirement for concurrence. The effect of this PC motion would be to reinsert a requirement for concurrence since there may be instances where the affected minister might not agree that CEPA is the best vehicle for action. Based on past experience this could result in delay and deadlock, something the members opposite have said they do not want. Since part 9 covers all federal departments and operations this decision making is appropriate in the hands of the governor in council and not just a small group of ministers.

This will probably be the last speech from this side on this piece of legislation on the report stage motions before us. I urge all hon. members, if they want this bill passed, if they want this bill to do the right thing for the environment, if they want to give the federal government the tools to make a difference for today and for future generations, support the changes being proposed by the government. CEPA can do the job to prevent pollution from occurring in the first place. It will enable us to deal with regulating toxic substances in our country and to virtually eliminate those deadly substances that none of us want.

Nine out of ten are already eliminated in Canada, things like DDT, but we are still seeing the effect in breast milk, in the arctic and in other places. We will have to do better. This bill will allow us to do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a few minutes before the bells ring for a vote.

I rise on a point of order regarding Motions Nos. 230 and 231 which have been twinned for the purposes of voting. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you for consideration that the twinning of these two motions is completely out of order and should be reviewed. The vote should be split on the two motions. On looking at clauses 342 and 343 of the bill you will see that Motions Nos. 230 and 231 have two completely different purposes and have nothing to do with each other.

Motion No. 230, which refers to clause 342 of the bill, brings in a technical change. The clause says “the minister shall as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year prepare and cause to be laid before parliament a report” et cetera. All the motion does is to say “before each House of Parliament” instead of “parliament”. It is purely a technical change.

Motion No. 231 brings in a very important substantive change which I suggest might even be a precedent before parliament. I cannot be 100% sure. It adds the notion that the review to be conducted by the House can be by the committee of the House of Commons or both houses of parliament. It has introduced a new notion under Motion No. 231 that it could be the committee of the House of Commons, or of the Senate. The review could be carried out either by the committee of the House of Commons or the committee of the Senate. It would be a great irony that a law of the Parliament of Canada could be sent for review to the committee of the Senate without being sent to the committee of the House of Commons.

Therefore I suggest that the two motions have nothing to do one with the other. We should not twin the vote because voting in the affirmative on Motion No. 230 which many members agree with 100%, and I would say the whole House would probably agree with it, there is nothing wrong with it, then negates the vote on Motion No. 231 which refers to a very substantive change in the clause as it is written in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to take this into consideration. Please split the two votes and take them separately.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wish to express full support for the argument just advanced by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that his advocacy for the splitting of the vote on these two motions would be in the best interests of the House and of the parliamentary process.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the integrity of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the thorough work it did on Bill C-32 would be jeopardized on a five year cycle review. All this could be left to the other place. I believe the House of Commons should keep its integrity and keep the standing committee's integrity for this is truly the work of elected parliamentarians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will take the matter under advisement. The voting will begin shortly. Just before the voting begins I will notify the House of the decision in this regard. I thank hon. members for their intervention. The hon. member for Churchill River has the floor.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in the remaining moments of the debate. As we all know, debate is limited. This is environment week. It would have been nice to debate Bill C-32 for the whole week but we are restricted to just two more minutes.

I want to get the attention of the government and the parliamentary secretary who boldly stated that the commissioner of environment was created by the Liberal government and in essence that the actions will be taken.

Ontario is number one at importing toxic waste. We can take that as a fact. Ontario is a large industrial province. It is also number one in North America. It is not just number one in Canada, it is in North America on importing of toxic waste. The Americans have worked hard under the EPA system to strengthen and enforce their regulatory system under the environment and waste rules. All these industries have found a safe haven in Ontario. It is the fault of the Ontario government and the federal government. They have not taken care of a gaping responsibility in terms of toxic waste in this province and the country.

We have talked about harmonization of provincial and federal responsibilities. There are great gaps as opposed to overlaps, as the minister has addressed.

I want to highlight in retrospect all these amendments that come into play. Cost effectiveness and the phase-out of toxins in the country are now being eliminated in the preamble. Phase-out is a major component of pollution prevention.

Bill C-32 should be renamed as an act allowing the pollution of the environment and risking human health to ensure unsustainable development so the finance minister can balance his budget and the polluters can poison our bodies, our children, our future and our fortunes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being 6.15 p.m. it is my duty pursuant to order made earlier this day to interrupt the proceedings and pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 27, 1999 to deem the outstanding motions to have been duly moved and seconded and the divisions deemed demanded and deferred.

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

moved:

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-32, in Clause 210, be amended a ) by replacing line 13 on page 152 with the following:

“210. Where the Ministers and, where appropriate, the minster responsible for the other Act of Parliament in question, are of” b ) by replacing line 23 on page 152 with the following:

“the Ministers and that other minister may make an order”

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 230

That Bill C-32, in Clause 342, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 216 with the following:

“prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament”

Motion No. 231

That Bill C-32, in Clause 343, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 47 on page 216 and lines 1 to 8 on page 217 with the following:

“force of this Act, stand referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within one year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons, the Senate or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon,”

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-32 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 219 the following new clause: 355.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), any regulation that was ( a ) made under the Act mentioned in section 355, and ( b ) in force immediately before the day on which this Act is assented to is deemed to have been made under this Act, and continues in force, subject to being amended or repealed under this Act.

(2) If a regulation continued in force by subsection (1) is not consistent with this Act at the end of the two-year period that starts on the day on which this Act is assented to, that regulation ceases to be in force at the end of that period.”

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The Chair would like to respond to a point of order raised by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

The voting pattern distributed earlier today indicated that the that the vote on Motion No. 230 would apply to Motion No. 231.

After hearing the representations of the hon. members for Lac-Saint-Louis, Churchill River and Davenport, the Chair is satisfied that Motions Nos. 230 and 231 are sufficiently different that a separate vote on each would be in order.

Therefore after the vote on Motion No. 230, a recorded division shall be taken on Motion No. 231.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 456

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.