Debates of May 31st, 1999

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. 6.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, especially to motions in Group No. 6. It is for me a great privilege to be able to discuss the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I wish, at the outset, to add my voice to those of my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois in congratulating our critic, the member for Jonquière who has worked so hard on this bill since October. She has listened patiently and attentively to the many witnesses and lobby groups who came before the committee to express their views on the legislation.

Indeed the environmental protection act is constantly undergoing revisions since changes in ways of production, technological progress and the evolution of all that surrounds us warrant a constant review of the legislation.

That is why I wish to pay tribute to the member for Jonquière for the work she has accomplished on this bill.

As my colleagues clearly explained, we cannot support the government's proposals in Bill C-32 because the federal government's approach of environmental issues, which are eminently contentious due to the jurisdiction the federal and the provinces share in this area, and the basic idea of this bill introduced by our friends across the way show that for them provinces are negligible players when it comes to taking decisions about the environment.

I have had the opportunity of sitting on the environment and sustainable development committee. Almost every day during the hearings, the federal government seemed to say: “You know, environment is so important that it transcends boundaries. So, we cannot let the provinces manage environmental issues, because they are too important”.

What the government is saying in a roundabout way is: we can let the provinces deal with the unimportant stuff, but it is up to the federal government to take care of important matters.

We find the Liberal government's idea of leaving the less important issues to the provinces and of taking care of the environment itself, since this is important, totally acceptable.

True, the environment is important. However, the provinces—and I will prove it to the House a little later on—are quite capable of promoting environmental standards and sustainable development initiatives involving the use of non-renewable and renewable resources.

If we follow the Liberal government's idea to its logical conclusion, when it says that the environment transcends boundaries, which means that the provinces are unable to assume their duties in their areas of jurisdiction, why would the federal government want to get involved?

If environmental issues transcend boundaries, and we only have to think about acid rain, we should let the Americans set our environmental standards. If the environment transcends boundaries, let us urge some other government or international agency to address them.

Yes, the environment transcends boundaries, but national governments like the provincial government of Quebec must play their role to defend and protect future generations and provide them with a healthy and sustainable environment.

In Bill C-32, Canadians are told that the federal government should legislate more for all jurisdictions because it knows best. It is often said that what goes around comes around. Let us look at the federal government's record, in particular what it did in Kyoto. It came up with a half-baked position at the very last minute. My colleague for Rosemont who was our party's critic for the environment at the time urged the minister to make her position known before she left. We got an answer just the day before she left for Kyoto. That was blatant improvisation.

We should also consider what happened after the Rio de Janeiro summit. We had a PC government then, followed by a Liberal government. For most of the commitments signed in Rio de Janeiro, at the notorious earth summit, neither the timetable nor the agenda have been respected.

The committee reviewed the role of all federal departments as far as the protection of the environment was concerned. It was concluded that the federal government should first clean up its own house. We are being told that the provinces are not up to their task of protecting the environment. However, at the federal level, oftentimes the environment department does not even know what the natural resources department is doing.

If one looks at what goes on in the Department of Industry or even in the Department of Transport, for example what goes on in airports with the use of toxic substances that are then discarded, if one looks at what goes on in the Department of Agriculture where there is virtually no legislation with regard to pesticides, each department has its own string to pull. But these strings are all entangled, and the Minister of the Environment cannot even find the beginning of a solution to environmental problems.

On one hand, the rhetoric is good, but on the other hand, we see actions that are totally inconsistent. To prove what I just said, I will give the example of an international conference on mercury where the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment publicly contradicted each other on this subject in front of experts and other people who were in attendance.

The Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment went to an international conference without developing a common position. Can we think that the idea of giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over environmental matters because they are important is justified when we see this kind of behaviour at an international conference?

According to the report from the environment commissioner, Brian Emmett, federal officials have said, after examining the reports submitted by businesses pursuant to the protocol on the reduction and elimination of toxic substances, that they believe more than 75% of reported reductions are false or misleading. Seventy-five per cent of the information contained in the reports on the elimination of toxic substances is false. And the federal government wants us to trust it. It wants us to believe it will pass definitive legislation on the environment.

Now, looking at what this same commissioner of the environment, Mr. Emmett, told the federal government about protection from toxic substances, how he accused it of shirking its responsibilities on toxic substances, we can see how we are entitled to question turning some elements of provincial jurisdiction over the environment over to the federal government.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a huge piece of legislation encompassing everything to do with environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada.

This bill needs intelligent amendment and improvement, so as to respect provincial jurisdictions and not to give the federal government more power, broader jurisdiction.

In order to address some of the inconsistencies in the federal and provincial legislation on the environment, I would like to quote an environmental expert, Pierre Béland, if I recall his name correctly. He sat on the Great Lakes Commission until very recently. He told us this “If a whale gets into problems in the middle of the St. Lawrence, it is under federal jurisdiction. If the same injured whale beaches itself, then it is under provincial jurisdiction, because the shores are provincial. But, if this injured beached whale dies, then it falls back under federal jurisdiction because it then comes under the federal legislation on endangered species”.

How can anyone make informed decisions on the environment when everything depends on the time of day, the wind direction, the temperature, and what not?

I believe that the party in power must do its homework, take into consideration the amendments presented by the opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois included, and improve Bill C-32. Otherwise, as we have said, we are going to have to vote against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to the motions in Group No. 6.

The NDP Motion No. 41 would require research in relation to pollution and children. Under the existing CEPA, whether it is reducing the amount of benzine, which is a known carcinogen in gasoline, or banning substances that harm the earth's ozone layer, the health and well-being of our children has always been a key consideration. The whole reason for Bill C-32 is to prevent pollution from substances that are harmful to the environment and human health, including our children.

The bill requires that the government look at the 23,000 substances that are currently in Canada. In the 1998 budget our government invested $40 million in toxic research. Children, as well as the elderly and aboriginal peoples, are most vulnerable to the threat of toxic substances. This research gave us answers on what needs to be done to protect those most vulnerable and all Canadians from the threat of toxic substances.

With these answers in hand, Bill C-32 and the $42 million earmarked in the 1999 budget for action on toxics will provide the means to better protect the environment and health of all Canadians.

Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 70 seek to link definitions in part 3 to areas that are accessible to pollution. We are not exactly sure what NDP Motion No. 36 is trying to accomplish. It seems to suggest that the definitions in part 3, fish and hormone disrupting substances, should apply in areas that are reasonably accessible to children. The NDP is trying to do the same to certain regulatory powers. This is unnecessary in our view.

Bill C-32 is a law of general application and it applies throughout Canada. It is a bill for all Canadians. The suggestion to add a definition of environmental pollutant is also confusing and we believe would limit the powers in part 3.

The government prefers to have research and information gathering powers to cover the all-inclusive concept of substance rather than the more narrow definition of environmental pollutant. We prefer Bill C-32 as it is rather than the narrowly defined powers suggested by the NDP and the Reform.

The Reform motion seeks to change the definition of hormone disrupting substances. While it was the government's intention to introduce a definition of hormone or endocrine disrupting substances at the committee stage, the government would prefer to let the committee's definition stand in its place. Our research community is actively pursuing research into endocrine disrupting substances and finding solutions to this growing concern.

The federal government is moving quickly to meet the requirements in Bill C-32 to conduct research. Hormone disrupting substances are a priority of the government's $40 million toxic substance research initiative.

Just last week the Ministers of Health and the Environment announced a series of projects under the first tranche of investment research dollars. Some $10.94 million was allocated to 81 projects across Canada to conduct research on toxic substances in five priority areas: persistent organic pollutants, specific forms of metals in the environment, endocrine disrupting chemicals, urban air quality and human exposure to airborne pollutants, and the cumulative effective of toxic substances.

Over 360 Canadian researchers will be participating in the various research studies. They will draw upon strong partnerships with government, industry, academia and non-governmental sectors. All provinces were covered in the announcement.

A University of Calgary study will investigate the adverse health effects on babies due to exposure to environmental chemicals in the mother's womb. The science management and technical review committees of the toxic substances research initiative reviewed many applications. They put forth much time and effort to review these applications and to move this process forward.

One of these announcements was the allocation of $2.16 million to 17 projects relating to endocrine disruption substances. They cover a wide range of issues concerning the effects on human health as well as the environmental impacts on the environment. Seven projects were given to Environment Canada, eight to universities across Canada, one to Health Canada and one to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The following are some of the projects: Michel Fournier, professor at the Institut Armand-Frappier, is investigating fetal organ thynic culture as organ assay for environmental endocrine disrupting substances, a $70,000 project; Robert Casper at the University of Toronto is looking into the adverse reproductive effect of exposure to dioxin-like endocrine disrupters, an $80,000 project; Donald Cole at McMaster University in Hamilton is looking into time of pregnancy, in vivo contaminant levels and biological mechanisms in premeps; Poh-Gek Forkhert at Queen's University in Kingston is looking into the reproductive toxicity induced by trichlorethylene in mice and humans; Scott Brown at Canada's own Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute located in Burlington, Ontario is looking into the effects of endocrine disrupters on seawater adaptability, growth and survival of salmon smolts.

There are other projects at the University of Calgary, at the University of Guelph and at the University of Toronto, all across this country. The government is putting its commitments to making sure that we are looking at preventing pollution, that we are putting together a strong regulatory framework and that we will have a bill that will see Canadians through into the next millennium making sure that we do things differently. We have learned the lessons from the past. The bill is necessary to make sure that we can implement those lessons and have a strong regulatory regime.

I urge all members of the House to support the bill and see its passage in the next couple of days.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today being the first day of environment week, I am very pleased to discuss Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and, in particular, Group No. 6 motions.

The bill is a very significant piece of legislation. It consists of 227 pages, 12 parts, 8 divisions and a total of 253 clauses that include regulations on toxic substances, exports and imports of hazardous waste, biotechnology, ocean dumping, vehicle emissions, fuels and fuel additives, international air pollution, enforcement and other environmentally related matters. It has undergone one of the lengthiest reviews in recent parliamentary history and has set several records.

I understand the committee held 59 meetings, 37 of which were on clause by clause review. More than 560 amendments were drafted for consideration. With today's proposed motions, Bill C-32 has now exceeded 800 amendments for consideration. The NDP has submitted over 100 amendments at committee, surpassing all opposition party amendments combined. I am very pleased to speak to the bill, which is perhaps the cornerstone of environmental protection in Canada.

I will turn now to the Group No. 6 motions. I will outline some of the points we would like to bring to the attention of the House concerning this group. It is very unfortunate that the Liberal government has imposed time restrictions to limit debate on this important bill which decides the level of environmental protection for Canadians.

Given the time restrictions I will begin to outline our efforts to provide a safer environment for children, the main theme behind the Group No. 6 motions. Children are especially vulnerable, as we heard earlier today, to environmental contaminants and pollution. A child's environment is affected even before birth.

If we look at such things as fetal alcohol syndrome, we know that what a mother takes into her body can affect the well-being of a child and have permanent and lasting effects throughout that child's life. Environment is very important for children.

People have concerns about lawns being sprayed with chemicals and pesticides. I recall receiving a letter from a person who had visited the town of Bedford. He said he was very impressed with this wonderful town in eastern Canada. He loved the place but he was concerned about the spraying of lawns that was taking place.

Environment is a very important issue. The Canadian Institute of Child Health presented a series of recommendations to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during the review of Bill C-32. The purpose of the motions in Group No. 6 are to acknowledge the special protection that our children expect and deserve.

We have followed the child institute's suggestion to investigate the specific legislation which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has in place entitled “A Safer Environment for Children”. The President of the United States referred to the specific request of the Environmental Protection Agency to acknowledge the special vulnerability and susceptibility of children to environmental contaminants and pollution. Congress agreed with the president and backed this historic initiative.

The basis of the amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act recognizes that current public health and environmental standards require specific recommendations as related to children. This requirement should carry into the establishment of regulations which govern the exposure to contaminants children may face.

The EPA instructions are mirrored in our New Democratic Party Motion No. 41. We chose to place this motion in part 3, the information gathering section, to ensure ministers and legislators take children into consideration whenever decisions are being made on environmental matters. This is very important.

Sometimes children are forgotten members of society. We do not consider them when we are making decisions. It is very important that we consider children. This can include toxic substance reviews where the process to quantify or regulate substances are concerned. The specific requirements are to assure that ministers conduct research or studies with respect to the increased susceptibility children face.

The motion requires that alternate substances or products “safer for children” be identified. Information on the potential health effects to children is also addressed. This should be acceptable to members of the House. It is important to recognize this is a precautionary measure. This is a principle we must look at.

While we are discussing the importance of the environment to children in Canada and while we are looking today at legislation that is outlined to try to protect the Canadian environment, we cannot look at it in isolation. We must recognize environment is an issue that should be of concern to us worldwide.

I find it quite ironic that we can be looking at protecting our environment while at the same time we as Canadians and as partners to NATO are taking part in the destruction of the environment in another part of the world. We are dropping bombs that are polluting water resources. We are destroying chemical factories and so forth, sending pollution adrift into the air. We as partners are condoning the use of weapons by the Americans which involve depleted uranium.

I will tell the House a bit about depleted uranium. We are told that it is a highly toxic substance to humans both chemically as a heavy metal and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter which is very dangerous when taken internally. Upon impact depleted uranium bursts into flames. It produces a toxic and radioactive ceramic aerosol that is much lighter than uranium dust. It can travel in the air tens of kilometres from the point of release and settle, waiting to be stirred up in dust and suspended in the air from human or animal movement. It is very small and can be breathed in by anyone from babies and pregnant women to the elderly and the sick.

This radioactive and toxic ceramic can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating the surrounding tissue with powerful alpha particles. It can affect the lungs, the gastrointestinal system, the liver, the kidneys, bone and other tissue, and the renal system.

We understand that in the current conflict taking place in Kosovo, the A-10 Warthog is capable of firing 4,200 rounds of this abomination every minute. The U.S. government has suggested that almost one million rounds of this radioactive toxin casing were fired in Iraq during the gulf war. Iraq has witnessed explosive rates of stillbirths, children born with defects, childhood leukemia and other cancers, particularly in the region where these shells were fired.

When we talk about protecting the environment we must not take it in isolation. We must not think only about our Canadian environment. The air knows no boundaries. Water knows no boundaries. Certainly, if we are talking about protecting children, we must be cognizant of children across the world and throughout the entire universe.

I urge that we consider very strongly this group of motions which strives to take precautionary measures to protect our children and our future.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the report stage debate on Bill C-32, legislation that proposes renewal of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The 10 minutes available to me in this part of the debate are not enough to describe fully the many advantages of the legislation. They do provide, however, sufficient time to outline 20 ways in which the bill is a significant improvement over the existing act, 20 ways in which the legislation will mean better protection of the environment and the health of Canadians.

(1) the bill makes pollution prevention the cornerstone of the new act and provides authority to require pollution prevention plans for toxic substances.

(2) under the legislation all 23,000 substances in Canada will be examined to determine if they are toxic.

(3) Bill C-32 puts in place deadlines for taking action to prevent pollution from toxic substances.

(4) the most dangerous toxic substances will be virtually eliminated.

(5) the bill will provide the environment minister with the power to require industry to prepare and implement emergency preparedness plans for toxic substances.

(6) the legislation requires that the government conduct research on hormone disrupting substances, something that the ministers of environment and health already acted on last week with investments under the toxic substances research initiative.

(7) it expands the minister's information gathering powers to support scientific research on environmental problems.

(8) it will promote greater public participation through a new Internet based environmental registry of CEPA information.

(9) citizens will also have a new right to sue if government fails to enforce CEPA and it results in significant harm to the environment.

(10) the bill requires the establishment of the national pollutants release inventory and guarantees that Canadians will be able to get information about pollution in their communities.

(11) in recognition of aboriginal self-government aboriginal governments will have representatives on the national advisory committee alongside provinces and territories.

(12) the bill expands the authority to require cleaner fuels, meaning cleaner air in Canadian cities.

(13) the legislation transfers authority to set engine emission standards for new motor vehicles from the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and expands it to cover other types of engines such as those in off-road vehicles and lawn mowers.

(14) protecting the environment is a global issue. It is therefore essential for Canada to meets its international environmental commitments. The bill provides authority to implement our obligations under the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal.

(15) it will allow Canada to put in place a more stringent regime for ocean disposal in accordance with the 1996 protocol to the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by the dumping of wastes and other matter.

(16) Bill C-32 contains authority to implement the convention on prior informed consent for hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.

(17) it also provides new authority to require pollution prevention plans for Canadian sources of international air and water pollution where another Canadian government is unwilling or unable to deal with the pollution source.

(18) to ensure that the law is obeyed, Bill C-32 provides peace officer status for our enforcement officers.

(19) it also gives enforcement officers the power to issue on the spot orders to stop violations and prevent pollution.

(20) the bill contains an innovative alternative dispute resolution mechanism to avoid costly court procedures.

These are 20 good reasons why I support Bill C-32. They are 20 reasons why all members should support the bill. Most important, this list of improvements outlines 20 ways in which the environment and health of Canadians will be better protected under Bill C-32.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand up today to speak about Bill C-32, especially about the motions in Group No. 6.

I am particularly pleased to have accepted the invitation from my colleague from Jonquière today, since this debate falls on the first day of environment week.

First of all, it is important to mention that no matter what changes are made to Bill C-32 we are against it, at this stage at least. However, we never opposed the basic principle linking economic development to environment protection. It is a fundamental principle established many years ago by the United Nations commission for the environment, which was chaired by Mrs. Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway. That commission put forth a concept where economic development environmental protection go hand in hand.

This is all the more important because of the population increase of the last few years. With that population explosion and technological advances, economic activity has multiplied by 20 since the beginning of this century. Furthermore economic growth was directly linked to technological development all over the world.

Whether we want it or not, not only did that impact on the environment but it also impacted directly on our life. In this context, it is unavoidable that we will face many environmental crises. It cannot be avoided, it is part of reality. That is why we have to protect ourselves.

Obviously we have to protect ourselves with laws, a fact that has been recognised on several occasions, including at the recent environment ministers' meeting, where the Quebec Minister of the Environment, Paul Bégin, expressed his desire to protect the environment, while making sure that certain clear rules are obeyed. I will come back to this subject later on, but I thought it was important to mention it now.

Earlier, I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment who enumerated a series of announcements she or her minister made concerning the environment over the last few months. It is important to look carefully at the net results of the government's commitment.

I reread my notes from the time I was the Bloc's environment critic. On April 24, 1998, the Liberal government launched a vast publicity campaign in Canada to sing the praise of the Canadian government for its key role in the protection against climate change at the international level. The publicity said, and I quote: “To play a key role at the international level by contributing to the reduction of the causes of climate change in the world”.

When I came to this House and when I became environment critic, I soon realized that there was a lot of rhetoric on the other side, but very few results. A quick look at this government's and this country's record with regard to the reduction of greenhouse gases is enough to see that we do not fare well among OECD countries.

I think it is important to say so because, over the last two years, the government has not had a clear objective with regard to the environment and has not even been able to meet the commitments made by its predecessor at the Rio summit in 1992.

I think it is important to deal with the issue of climate change. For the past two years, the government, through its environment minister, has claimed it would play a leadership role in international fora, especially at the Kyoto summit. This issue is of the utmost importance since over the past few years we have been releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing global warming.

It is important to note that we in North America alone are responsible for a quarter of emissions. In view of this environmental situation, it is important to make international commitments and pass laws taking it into account.

At the Rio summit in 1992 the federal government agreed to the common goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000. Canada agreed to it and so did Quebec through a motion passed by the national assembly. While the federal government was committed to acting as a responsible government, taking the necessary steps, and respecting the international commitments it signed, more than ever Quebec was true to its word on this issue at the international level. Its record speaks for itself.

I mentioned 1992, but there is also mention 1995, the Berlin international conference where the alarm was sounded to the world to the effect that the mere stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 would not be enough because it would not reduce the mortality rate nor the incidence of diseases caused by global warming and gas emissions.

At that time the message from Berlin was loud and clear. Governments that made a commitment in Rio in 1992 must not only stand by it, but if at all possible, go even further.

The Kyoto conference is another important event. Canada who, a year before, was bragging about being an international showcase and leading the way in gas reduction, is not acting upon its commitments although they had some merit. That conference could have allowed Canada to influence the future.

Instead, the federal government has delayed disclosing its commitments and its position with regard to a 3 per cent reduction of gas emissions by the year 2010. That is not enough. Quebec said so over and over again. Quebec was ready to commit to going twice as far as Canada in its initial position.

On the issue of climate changes, Quebec has met its commitments. Quebec was able to do so because it adjusted its objectives. It has undergone a change in its energy use thus enabling it to improve the situation in Canada as well as internationally.

While Western Canada kept investing in fossil fuels, Quebec gave greater place to hydroelectric generation and came up with policies in keeping with our quality of life needs both economic and environmental, which of course includes economic growth.

At this stage, we oppose Bill C-32 because it is conducive to overlapping and duplication and, especially, because the federal government does not respect Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over environment matters under the Constitution.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to honour environment week which we are recognizing this week.

I also mention that the Minister of Canadian Heritage again got it wrong. In a statement on a question earlier today during question period she said “two founding peoples of this nation”. I remind the minister and her Liberal Party that there are actually three founding peoples of this nation with the first one being the aboriginal people of this country. The French and English came afterward. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage we would think she would know that more than anyone else.

We are here to talk about something equally important. It is probably the most important act we could do as parliamentarians, CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I sat in on some of the committee hearings which were long and drawn out but very important. The Liberals with their Reform counterparts have completely watered down the bill and now CEPA stands for “can't ever protect anything”. That is what this bill amounts to and I will give an example.

When the bill came out of committee one part of the preamble was “Whereas the Government of Canada acknowledges the need to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances”. The part “to phase out” has been removed by the Liberal government. The bill has been severely weakened by that action.

The bill said “achieving virtual elimination” but the word “achieving” is gone when taking steps to achieve the virtual elimination of a substance. The government has completely watered this down to the point where the minister will now prescribe the quantity or concentration of the substance that may be released into the environment. This is not a phase-out of these toxic substances, it is a reduction. It is virtual elimination, not a total phase-out.

When will the government understand that in order to protect Canadians and future generations, we have to totally eliminate these things, not virtually eliminate? There is nothing to tell industry it is mandatory to abide by these rules and legislation.

The Liberal government's and previous governments' actions on the environment are severely weakened to the point that it borders on absolutely terrible.

The MMT decision by this Liberal government cost $13 million U.S. Nobody in this country wanted a manganese additive in their gasoline except the Liberal government. We are required to pay $13 million U.S. to keep it here and nobody else wants it.

At the present time there are also concerns about the bulk transport of water out of this country. Nobody in Canada wants to do that except the Liberal government. If the government wanted to stop it, legislation would have been put forward and passed by now. But no, we are being sued again by the California and U.S. governments to the tune of $220 million. If the MMT decision is anything similar to that, we will end up losing that as well because the government has no teeth and no guts when it comes to the protection of our environment.

Twenty-five years ago one out of every twenty women in this country was diagnosed with breast cancer; now it is one out of every nine. The facts speak for themselves. Those are women. We are not talking about children yet which this particular clause is about. For the government not to take in the rights and the protection of our children at all costs is absolutely criminal.

We heard the parliamentary secretary talk about money spent on research which is very welcome. The question is what is being done with that information? The environmental commissioner said it is being ignored completely. The government whitewashes it, gets rid of it. The government talks and talks and nothing happens.

In April 1998 I asked the deputy minister of the environment if he had the finances or resources to do the job properly. His answer was no, he did not. In April 1998 it is on the record that the deputy minister of the environment said that he did not have the finances, the resources or the personnel to do the job effectively. I have not seen any changes on that.

A lot of people outside of the House are watching this debate today. They need to be congratulated for their tireless efforts in terms of protecting the environment.

I think of Mr. Brian McHattie and Mr. Don McLean of Red Hill Creek down in South Hamilton. They are trying to protect that urban park from expansion of the expressway.

I would like to thank Mr. Dennis Bicknell, Ms. Marilyn Chalice and Walter Reagan of the Sackville River's Association, and I wear their pin proudly today, for the protection of the river and trail systems of Lower Sackville and Bedford and the protection they offer to children in restoring creeks for salmon habitat and everything else.

I would also like to thank two NDP MLAs from Nova Scotia, Mr. John Holm and Mr. Don Chard for their tireless efforts in getting 660 acres of land protected in Lower Sackville. That is for the protection and use of our children for many generations to come.

I would also like to thank Mr. Paul Falvo and Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club, Mr. Dave Campbell, Mr. Paul Muldoon and of course the greatest environmentalist this country has ever had, Mr. David Suzuki.

These people spend their lives trying to protect the environment and get the message across to the government that it is definitely needed and very important.

I wish to thank Mr. Mark Butler and the Ecology Action Centre of Nova Scotia for over 27 years of environmental activism in terms of protecting the environment of Nova Scotia. Without them I do not know where we would be today.

It is not surprising that the government does not understand what is going on. However, there are three Liberal members whom I wish to congratulate for their tireless efforts in protecting the environment. They are the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for York North and the member for Davenport. At least these three people listen. At least these three Liberals understand environmental concerns. At least these three Liberals know what the hell is going on. Unfortunately, the other 150-odd Liberals do not know. I apologize for using that strong word. At least those three Liberals understand the situation. The rest of them do not and that is a crime.

Members of the Reform Party of Canada support things like virtual elimination. That shows exactly who is buttering their bread, and that is industry. When will they realize that industry only cares about profits and shareholders? It does not care about the environment. If it did, it would put in long term solutions and programs that would benefit the seven generation principle which our aboriginal people have survived on for thousands and thousands of years.

Unfortunately, these Liberal and Reform members can only see the ends of their noses and that is it, usually in four year electoral terms. The record is quite clear.

Recently we heard an announcement on the Sydney tar ponds. Except for Chernobyl, it is probably the world's worst environmental site. It has been decided to put $62 million in to move some families. Although that is very welcome, what we need from the government is a commitment now. Not tomorrow, now.

The Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister must stand in the House and say that the tar ponds are going to be cleaned up once and for all. We have not heard them say that. We have heard the government say it is going to put so many millions of dollars into this, it is going to do this, and it is going to consult.

We have been talking about the tar ponds for years and years. My message is quite clear to Liberals: clean it up now. It is simple. I will say it one more time so they will hear it: clear up the Sydney tar ponds now, not tomorrow. People are getting very sick. The rates of cancer in the Sydney area are exponential to that in the rest of the country.

It is unbelievable that the government just sits here and wastes time after time after time. The sad thing is people are now saying—

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

You just voted against time allocation.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Time allocation on a watered down CEPA bill, I say to the parliamentary secretary. It was watered down went it left committee.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. Why was the bill watered down when it left committee? Why was that done? It is quite simple. I know the parliamentary secretary will not get an opportunity to respond. Perhaps she can do that afterward over coffee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is a decent person, but when it comes to the protection of the environment all she reads is what she is handed by the bureaucrats. I wish for once she would tell us how she really feels about protecting the environment.

I could go on for days on this subject. In the old days we were able to do that; we could filibuster until the cows came home. I wish we still had those days.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, federally and provincially, it is a real shame that the government watered down the bill when it left committee. Now we will see where the real Liberals stand in terms of the votes tonight at 6.30 p.m. This is where we will separate the Liberals from the true environmental protectors on this side, my colleagues in the Bloc and some of those in the Conservative Party.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to intervene on Bill C-32, which concerns the protection of the environment.

Right off, I would point out that our party is very aware of environmental issues. I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the member for Jonquière, for the work she has done in committee. In mentioning the work done in committee, I am not telling you anything new when I say the birth was a very difficult one. It took more than forceps to get this bill before us.

Just to give you an idea, this bill was tabled at first reading on March 12, 1998. We will recall that it replaced Bill C-74, which died on the order paper because of the election call on June 2, 1997.

The bill was tabled on March 12, 1998, at first reading, and was referred to committee for study in the fall of 1998, which was concluded in April 1999. We might well question the coherence of this bill, since amendments are coming from all sides, presented without any sort of link or relationship. We may well wonder what sort of bill will govern the rules of society, what sort of law we will have if it is passed in its entirety.

It took some 60 sessions to study the bill clause by clause, and 580 amendments were drafted. To those watching us, you heard correctly, 580 amendments. That is incredible, nothing like this is ever seen and it will certainly appear in the Guinness book of records, not to mention the internal records list of the House.

The government would have done better, in my opinion, to withdraw its bill right off, to do its homework, return to the drawing table, start from scratch and say “Just a minute, let us get in tune”. When a government introduces 580 amendments to its own bill, we are entitled to question its consistency.

The standing committee on the environment, as I said, broke all records; it passed some 160 amendments. The final result is a bill with considerable inconsistency. In the short time we have, I will try to point out some of the inconsistencies.

First of all, there is the whole question of harmonization with the provinces. Under the original version of Bill C-32, the federal government was going to act in accordance with the intent of intergovernmental agreements. The Liberal majority softened this requirement by adding the word “endeavour” before the verb “to act”.

We all know the legal implication of such words as “endeavour”, “attempt” or “try”. Then they say “We have tried. We attempted to do this or that, but unfortunately it was not possible and we finally did as we pleased”. In a democratic system, it is always worrying when the governing party is trying to pull a fast one on us.

Fortunately, the members of the Bloc Quebecois who sat on the standing committee on the environment were very alert. They were very well prepared and they have worked like monks, night and day, to show the amendments tabled by the liberal majority up for what they are. This one looks like a bull in a china shop. Its purpose is to add the word “endeavour” before the verb “to act”.

The Bloc Quebecois maintains that the federal government must always keep in mind the prospect of harmonization with the provinces, to avoid duplication and overlap in the legislation and regulations.

Contrary to what certain persons may think, when the House adjourns for the summer, the MPs will not be on holiday until September 19. We will continue our work in our riding offices, we will keep on meeting people. When we meet people at the convenience store, the cleaner, the shopping mall or elsewhere, they tell us “There is way too much overlap and duplication”.

In the end, who pays for such overlap and duplication? It is the same person. Whether we are talking about federal, provincial or municipal taxes, we always have the same common denominator, namely the taxpayer. Taxpayers are tired of paying. They want us to avoid overlap and duplication.

Unfortunately, this bill perpetuates overlap and duplication. We Bloc Quebecois members cannot accept that. We believe that the people whom we represent are paying enough taxes. They are fed up with their level of taxation.

By trivializing federal-provincial harmonization agreements, the Liberal government clearly shows that it lacks the will to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces with regard to the environment.

In one of its amendments, the Bloc Quebecois proposes that the word “endeavour” be deleted. We are saying “You must reach an agreement, you must act, instead of merely endeavour to act”.

I will try to hurry to say all that I have to say. Clause 9 of the bill reads as follows:

9.(1) The Minister may negotiate an agreement with a government...with respect to the administration of this Act.

However, the Liberal majority on the committee decided to subject this agreement to a new clause 9.(9), which would trivialize any potential equivalency agreement with the provinces. With this clause, the federal government is giving itself the authority to go over the heads of the provinces, even if the federal government has concluded an agreement with a province.

This is entirely incomprehensible and unacceptable coming from a federal government that says it wishes to work in partnership with the provinces. Clearly, this government's left hand does not know what its right hand is doing.

We have the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs constantly telling us he is looking for harmony, co-operation and partnership with the provinces, while the Prime Minister drones on about how there has been more co-operation with the provinces since he has been in office. I respectfully beg to differ. All this government is looking for is confrontation with the provinces, not just with Quebec.

We could talk about the relations between Quebec and Ottawa since the Liberals took office in 1993, but also about the relations with all the provinces. Quebec is not alone in its concerns about the dominating and centralizing tendencies of this government, which is trying to turn the provinces into branch plants. The federal government is lord and master. The provinces are valets and branch plants. We and our constituents cannot accept this.

The Bloc Quebecois suggested a number of amendments at report stage, including some to the preamble itself. We are moving that the paragraph in the preamble decreeing that there be national environmental standards and national ecosystem and environmental quality codes of practice be dropped.

We feel that the federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the environment. This paragraph is therefore unacceptable to us.

I have only one minute left and will therefore have to skip over important parts of my speech, but I will try to summarize them.

The Liberal members on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development have often put a knife to the throats of opposition members, using their numerical majority to pass amendments. We feel that these amendments, particularly those passed by the majority Liberal members in committee, are unacceptable.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill at report stage and at third reading, unless the government decides to listen to reason and moves amendments acceptable to our party.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and thank my hon. colleague from Churchill River, our environmental critic, for all the work he has done in this area and for ensuring that our caucus was constantly kept up to date on the changes that were happening. He made an absolute point of letting us know his grave concern over the watering down process that was happening with the bill at committee because of the Liberal majority there.

There is no question that amendments thereafter were an attempt to offset the watering down process. I thank him for his principled position and for continually trying to improve the bill before us. Should by some horrible chance the government's amendments all go through and we have a watered down approach, I am sure he will continue to pursue better legislation for all the time he is here.

Group No. 6 is key to the legislation in that it addresses the issue of children's health as much as, if not more than others. It recognizes that children are different and respond differently to the environmental hazards around them.

I notice the hon. member for Burlington said that we do not need separate motions to protect different groups, that the bill is there to protect everyone. However the bottom line is that the bill is not following through. It is not doing the job it needs to do. We are saying that we should give kids a fighting chance as they are more vulnerable.

We all know it takes less of something to damage a child than it does others. There are numerous indications of problems which result while children are in utero. We are constantly told in the first trimester of pregnancy to be careful so that there are not problems. That is just in taking medications, let alone toxic substances which affect Canadians. Specifically children are the most vulnerable.

I have a hard time accepting that there should not be some absolute phase out of certain toxins in areas where children are most vulnerable. We do not let pedophiles hang around schoolyards. However, toxins are knocking children off left, right and centre. If the government cannot see the need to treat children with added care, then something is seriously wrong.

We need to ensure that there will be future research and studies by the health and environment ministries to specifically look at the damage children will feel.

I also want to comment on the relationship between the federal and provincial governments. The reason we have federal and provincial governments is that Canadians recognize that there are different levels in which they want to see governments involved. Canadians see the federal government, I am sure much to the dissatisfaction of the Bloc, as a tie that binds us together. We want to see all Canadians protected equally.

I do not get caught up in the provincial and federal issue because I believe that whatever we do to ensure safety and benefits and to improve things for all Canadians is the route we want to go. The federal-provincial issue has been an ongoing problem and it is an argument that both levels of government end up using. They cannot do this because it is federal. They cannot do this because it is provincial. The bottom line is that they both end up passing the buck and nothing gets done. It is time we ensure that things are accomplished while we are here.

The proposed series of amendments from our caucus and from our environmental critic to provide a safer environment for our children will ensure that consideration will be given to the specific vulnerability and susceptibility of children's experiences toward environmental contaminants and pollutants during future regulatory initiatives. There are warnings on pesticide residues on produce in the United States, including warnings for parents to take care, wash apples and peel them. We do not do that in Canada.

This series of motions will require the ministers to compile a list of substances that are specific hazards to children through the development stages and early years when they are most at risk. What that is saying is that, given the chance to know what is there, I believe parents will make decisions on what their children should have and what they should not have. They will take whatever precautionary methods they need. Not giving them information on the risks is much like the tobacco companies have been doing for years. They increase the amount of nicotine to make it addictive. It was not until years and years of constant pressure that we saw some honesty. We realized that the industry was not out there only to make a buck at the expense of the lives of Canadians, it also preyed upon children. The industry wanted to make sure that children would become addicted to the deadly toxins in tobacco products.

The New Democratic Party called attention to phthalates, softeners for plastic materials, a year before Health Canada acted. The health minister said there was not enough proof. Why act with precaution when other countries in Europe were banning these materials? I want to tell members that I was sitting across from the minister in the House when he said that there was absolutely no need at all. The lives of Canadian children were put at risk for another year. The minister said a year later “We have to ban them. They are not good”.

One of those phthalates I had wrapped up in a little shower gift to give to a friend's baby. When I phoned to find out about which products were okay and which were not, the Health Canada line did not tell me which products were bad, it told me all the ones which were good. I just had to find that toy and try to track it down because I could not find out from Health Canada. It did not want to upset industry by saying that a product was bad. Luckily, as a member of parliament, enough organizations had sent information to say that the gift was bad. Those wonderful soft fingers and toes that I was going to give that baby to chew on are now sitting in the closet. Maybe I can send them as a gift to the health minister.

The bottom line is that for a year longer children were put at risk because of the government's failure to do what was absolutely necessary. Why not have a legislated requirement to investigate any potential risk to children?

Once again let us talk about the issue of tainted blood and the arguments we heard that it was not a problem and the government was doing everything it could. We knew that in some countries other things were being done. Why take the chance? Why on earth would we take the chance of jeopardizing someone's life, except for the arrogance of thinking that we are right, like the government did? It just went ahead and did whatever. It was not going to ensure the protection of Canadians. That is the problem.

Returning to the issue of toys, the member for Acadie—Bathurst introduced a private member's motion to protect children from chemicals in toys, but Liberal members voted against our motion. It is not only the health minister who should take the credit for having to wait one year longer. Every Liberal member who voted should take the credit for jeopardizing the health of Canadian children for an extra year.

A listing process, such as the one described in our Motions Nos. 41, 70 and 73, would have avoided the Liberal government's embarrassment and inaction.

These Group No. 6 motions will assist the government in reducing the potential adverse impacts on children from a variety of substances, including pesticides. The requirement could be there for ministers to address children's vulnerability to toxic substances while gathering information for research. No one would be put at risk. We would be ensuring that one extra step toward protection.

I know there are other members who want to talk on this subject because it is very serious and there has been a time allocation ordered. Because of all the serious issues with health care, the environment for a while has been on the back burner.

It is extremely important that we ensure this is good, decent and strong legislation. We must not allow this skirting around of the issue. I encourage everyone to support our amendments. Let us put a piece of environmental legislation through that will protect Canadians.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to join my colleagues in commending the hon. member for Jonquière for her excellent work. The member is known for her relentless work and the emphasis she puts on team work.

Several times, she has asked her colleagues from the Bloc to help her deal with some issues that were raised in committee and with which they were more familiar. Since I am the critic for Indian affairs for my party, I have met a few times with native groups. The Assembly of First Nations made a presentation that attracted a lot of attention, and I think the Inuit Tapirisat also came before the committee.

Since several native groups did participate in the process, I feel I can speak on this issue.

First, let me read a quote from the report of the royal commission that I find very significant. It deals with the events the occurred in the Yukon during the gold rush. “When Skookum Jim found some gold, everything changed. The first white men came to our country. They took everything the Indians had. Now, they want this country, this land. I have 64 grandchildren in the Yukon. I worry about them. What will happen? Where are the grandparents of the white kids? The native people should have their own land”. For the record, this is a quote from Annie Ned, an excerpt from a book by Julie Cruikshank, Life lived like a story , published by the University of British Columbia Press.

I think this excerpt helps put things in perspective. Considering the way things have evolved regarding the environmental issue, we have nothing to brag about. Again, I can read excerpts of the royal commission which says that many descriptions of the environment were made back then, when the Europeans arrived, namely by the Jesuits.

They described flocks of ducks and Canada geese so dense that they were like a cloud obscuring the sun. Or miraculous fishing trips where Europeans only had to stick their hands in the river to catch fish.

Of course, there is something symbolic in all this. Maybe some facts are not absolutely exact. But this goes to show that before the Europeans came, native people were living in an environment that was untouched and perfect. They always had the greatest respect for the environment. What happened after white people came to this country? Well things began to deteriorate.

With the recent developments of the 60's, 70's and 80's, things are far from getting better. Instead, they are getting worse. Natives in the North have often told me they were very concerned about mining projects, among other things.

A while ago I mentioned the Yukon. I went there when I was first elected here in 1993. I saw the disaster caused by the gold rush which totally changed nature and the environment. Consequently, the aboriginals are stuck with lands for which they have made claims but on which they must sacrifice part of their environmental standards and of their great respect for nature. It is somewhat distressing for them, and it some of the things they often mention.

There is also, in the far north, mercury pollution left behind on Canadian and American bases. Canada and the U.S. ran these bases, but left everything behind. There is so much pollution that the Inuit are deeply concerned about the food chain, which is deteriorating. Traces of mercury have even been found in breast milk. That is something we often hear, and the situation is far from improving.

We have nothing to be proud of. Some will say “Quebec is no better because it also caused some deterioration to the environment”. People often refer to the James Bay Agreement, to which I say “What about hydro in Manitoba? The Cree were the victims of hydro projects ten times worse that what was done in a civil way in Quebec”.

I am sure that we have had our disagreements with the aboriginals, but we settled our difficulties and we are continuing to settle problems, for that matter. There are demands for the reopening of the James Bay agreement, and there are important environmental components that the Government of Quebec is ready to look at.

I join with my colleagues in saying that this bill will, once again, create duplication and overlap. As per usual, Ottawa is acting like a big brother who wants to manage the whole environmental issue and go over the provinces' heads. This is utterly deplorable.

Under the James Bay agreement, Quebec can say to aboriginal peoples “We are ready to re-examine some provisions in order to update them; if you have concerns about the environment, we are ready to work with you in order to correct them”.

In Quebec, there is a tradition of negotiating with the aboriginal peoples that is quite unlike what occurred in Manitoba. When I say ten times worse, I refer to the fact that rivers in Manitoba have been diverted and that the lands of some aboriginal peoples have been completely flooded.

Today, several decades later, those peoples are still demanding compensation and those issues have yet to be settled. In fact, some bills dealing with aboriginal peoples and in particular with the terrible hydro situation in Manitoba will soon be introduced in the House of Commons.

I also travelled to British Columbia on several occasions and it is a true scandal to see the clear-cutting that is going on there. I raised the issue with the federal Minister of Natural Resources and his counterpart in British Columbia. The government's strategy is quite simple: when lands are claimed by aboriginal peoples, that sets off a rush on natural resources. In other words, the idea is to get out as much of the resources as possible then, once clear-cutting is completed, the government announces to the aboriginal peoples that it is ready to transfer lands.

This strategy is rather crooked. On the road, hundreds of trucks go by. Loggers practice clear-cutting, load trucks and then race to get as much of the natural resources as possible from lands claimed by aboriginal peoples.

I saw that with the Nisga'a. Fortunately, this fall we are probably going ahead with the passage of a bill which will confirm the final signing with the Nisga'a.

There are other aboriginal communities, such as the Chilkotin and the Carrier-Sekani, who are making land claims and are having to watch powerless while their forests are systematically being cut down. When the cutting is over, then the aboriginal peoples will be told “Now we are ready to sit down with you and negotiate land claims”. They are going to find they have very little left.

I also wish to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière for having succeeded in getting the concept of traditional aboriginal knowledge included in the preamble. This is very important in today's context.

The aboriginal peoples' environmental expertise must be acknowledged. The environment is very important, not only as part of their culture, but also because of its link to their traditions of hunting, fishing and gathering. The oral nature of their traditions must be addressed. The Delgamuukw decision in the supreme court now recognizes that increasing importance will be attached to the oral tradition. I would like to congratulate my colleague for getting this included, at least in the preamble.

As for the overlap in general, as for the matter of big brother in Ottawa assuming the right to go over the provinces' heads, if the government does not heed the amendments submitted by my party, then of course the Bloc Quebecois will be forced to vote against Bill C-32.

In closing, I wish to thank the hon. member for Jonquière for her excellent work.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general and the Commissioner for the Environment have identified contaminated and polluted sites as a major liability that is hurting Canadians and our children on a daily basis.

It is not only the health liability that is a concern, it is also the financial liability that drains millions from the government's coffers in the form of cleanup costs and increased medical bills for families and their children living in a contaminated zone.

In my home, Cape Breton Island, we know all about costs. The Sydney tar ponds, the largest toxic waste site in Canada, are endangering the health of our families and our children and putting a brake on attempts to energize the economy. Who wants to open up shop on contaminated land?

The New Democratic Party believes in green initiatives, that cleaning up industrial waste and other toxic sites presents not only a challenge that needs to be addressed but an economic opportunity to be grasped.

For people in Cape Breton the remediation of the thousands of acres contaminated by centuries of coal mining and heavy industry offers the prospect of stable work and the opportunity for Cape Breton to become a centre of excellence in the environmental cleanup industry. Excellence is an important word to focus on because it is essential that any of these projects that are undertaken from coast to coast be done to the highest standards.

Although I have just emphasized the economic benefits that can come from a sensitivity to environmental concerns, it is crucial that the quest to create jobs not obscure the main objective which is to make sure that the toxic sites are properly cleaned once and for all.

Too often contaminated sites have been cleaned up with a layer of topsoil and some daisies leaving the contaminants in the ground to endanger our future generations. Cleanups need to begin with a proper assessment of the situation at each site and the cleanup needs to follow a clear and transparent process from start to finish.

Many of the problems experienced during site cleaning are caused by a lack of communication with the public and with affected populations. For example, the recent and commendable decision by the Nova Scotia government to relocate residents living on two streets adjacent to the Sydney tar ponds has simply created more tension because the relocation appears to have been executed as a reaction to public pressure not as part of an overall strategy.

In Cape Breton a clear plan is essential as any errors made in a region with fractured bedrock could result in long term recontamination of the groundwater.

Just as we have fought the financial deficit, we have to address the environmental deficit. We cannot leave this debt for our grandchildren to pay, especially as the price will be paid in birth defects, disease and premature death.

Government after government has ignored the recommendations of the environment commissioner, covering their lack of action with warm words. I hope the government will have the courage to break that cycle and that we on the NDP benches will have the opportunity to work with the government and all Canadians of goodwill on this crucial issue.

Children are at special risk from the effects of pollution. To once again speak of my home, we have recently learned from a study released in Cape Breton that the rate of birth defects is much higher than the national average. Independent sources confirm that the true picture is much worse.

We have to make a commitment to our children that we will provide them with what the United States Environmental Protection Act defines “as areas that are reasonably accessible to children”. That means clean streets, clean soil and clean water.

As the mother of a 10 year old daughter and an 8 month old son, I owe it to my children and we as a government owe it to Canadian children.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of Bill C-32, the motions in Group No. 6 contain major amendments to the original version of bill.

I do not want to reiterate all that my colleagues have said before me, especially my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, inspired here by our environment critic, the member for Jonquière.

I would like to take a closer look at this government's lack of environmental responsibility since 1993 and discuss waste.

In 1993, when the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, formed his cabinet, he appointed the member for Hamilton, at the time, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment. We agree that the environment is the most important department, especially in an election. Non-living and living elements must be respected.

A few months later, she was obliged to leave her post for failing to honour an election promise on the GST. We lost our Minister of the Environment, because she resigned. The Prime Minister appointed another Minister of the Environment, and, according to our evaluation and that of the public at large, quality continued to drop. Following the 1997 election, we were given a third Minister of the Environment. Clearly there is a lack of responsibility.

The good member for Davenport, an environmentalist and an ecologist of renown, served as Minister of the Environment under John Turner. He was, with Lucien Bouchard, one of the best Ministers of the Environment. I would like to salute him in this House. The member for Davenport, chairman of the standing committee on the environment, is surely not proud of his government.

First of all, as the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans put it so well, there was a record number of amendments. A total of 580 amendments have been introduced. It took 60 sessions to study Bill C-32 clause by clause. Finally, the committee managed to pass some 160 amendments.

This morning in Le Devoir , there is an article by Manon Cornellier, under the heading “A Little Breathing Space”. She supports the rebellion among the Liberal Party backbenchers, in particular the six who dared to vote against their party line last week. The government, with its 156 members, does not enjoy a huge majority. So when six members form a separate group, it puts the good Liberal government we have before us at some risk.

I would like to quote a short paragraph about the dissident members:

Liberal members have also targeted a number of bills. The first one, Bill C-32, deals with the prevention of pollution by toxic substances. The Standing Committee on the Environment, including the Liberal members, has decided to provide real means of action. The ministers that are more responsive—

Listen to that. This is really not serious, and we do not have a very capable environment minister.

The ministers that are more responsive to the concerns of industry did not appreciate that. They have forced the environment minister to block the committee through a series of amendments. As a result, 233 amendments of all kinds have been introduced.

They have twisted the arm of the hon. member for Davenport, a former environment minister.

We cannot help but conclude that the environment is not a priority for the government of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. Our environment has four non-living elements: air, water, soil, and light. When we speak about our children and their future, we should at least pass on to them clean water, uncontaminated soil, air that will not cause cancer to 5 or 6-year old children, something that does occur in certain areas of this country.

The soil is under provincial jurisdiction. With respect to the environment, Quebec is well ahead of even the federal government, and of course all the other provinces. Quebec is a leader on environmental matters.

In this regard the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who headed the environment ministry under Robert Bourassa in the 70s did a pretty good job, I must admit, with the resources and the budget he was allocated. He did a good job, and it must be said that in Quebec we look after our land, not only sceptic tanks. We look after our environment.

When we talk about the air and the water, we know we all breathe the same air. We drink water. We also know water flows downhill, not uphill.

If we could have a responsible world government that would deal with water and air pollution, things might be better. Light comes from the sun. We will deal with smog later on.

With regard to water, let us take the most visible example, the St. Lawrence River. It is shared not only by two provinces, but by two countries. The United States are largely contributing to the pollution of the St. Lawrence River. It flows through Montreal and the Gaspé. The effects of pollution on the food chain are increasing visible as the member for Saint-Jean mentioned. The fish we eat might make us very sick because of the heavy metals, especially mercury, it contains.

We doubt the government is very serious about the environment. The federal government is trampling over this field as it did with the millennium scholarships. It was outside its jurisdiction, but it got in through its spending power. They even wanted to force our education minister to negotiate with Jean Monty.

We told Jean Monty “Look after your employees instead”. Look after you company, Bell Canada. If you have some spare time left, go play golf, engage in PR activities, but do not get involved in things in which you have no business, such as the scholarships”. As members know, this is a provincial jurisdiction.

Now, the government is duplicating structures in the environmental sector. When the Canadian Constitution was signed in 1867, the environment was not a priority. The 1867 Constitution is totally silent on jurisdictions, on the sharing of powers regarding the environment. An agreement was reached over the years.

Under that agreement, when specific issues concern more than one province, the federal government is in charge, such as in the case of hunting permits.

If a person wants to go duck hunting, he or she will need to get a permit from the post office. I know members are well aware of that since migrating birds come under federal jurisdiction. However, if a person wants to go partridge hunting, he or she will need a provincial permit, because partridges stick to a very small area.

Once again, the federal government is about to duplicate existing structures, and the taxpayer always ends up paying double. It is like the example I gave last week in the House, with two agriculture ministers being responsible for the same milk cow. If the milk is processed or consumed locally, there are two jurisdictions, but it is the same cow and the same producer. The situation is similar here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, Kosovo.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this protection legislation is absolutely critical. Oftentimes in committee we deal with immediate matters, but the environment committee took on the responsibility for producing or refining legislation that would truly protect our environment not just for now but for the future.

The future is embodied in our children and their children, our progeny for generations to come. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that as things stand they are just fine, and if we carry on as we are there will be no repercussions. Every decision we make should be in regard to how we want to protect our children and their ability to live their lives to the fullest.

In 1997 there was an Arctic contaminants report which dealt with persistent organic pollutants and the disproportionate effects of these pollutants in the north. As they evaporate out of the south in warmer climates where they are produced in more industrial areas and move farther and farther north, they do not evaporate. They sink into the environment in very high numbers, causing extremely insidious and serious problems for the animals and the people who live there.

After a six year study it was found that the level of contaminants, and these include DDT, were extremely high in the breast milk of indigenous peoples and other women who have lived their lives in the north. There will be unusual infections; exhaustion; tumours; a very high level of thyroid malfunction, which does not sound like much until one has been someone who has suffered from that; depression; and miscarriages.

What has come to light is not necessarily that there has to be a particularly high level of the toxin, but it can be a level at the time of exposure during a window of opportunity or a window of exposure for contamination at a low level that can disrupt the whole endocrine system and interfere with the development of the thyroid.

As it happens, the level of children with attention deficit disorders who also have thyroid problems is around 80%. They can be hyperthyroid, which is overactive, and have all the problems that come with it, or they can be hypothyroid, which can make them very lethargic, apathetic and suffer from depression and the ability to concentrate. Those are just different sides of the same coin. Their bodies will actually resist the absorption of any kind of thyroid hormone which regulates their whole metabolic system, from their temperature to their thinking to their ability to put a sentence together.

We are talking about the mental development of children who are affected by low levels of toxins and low levels of toxins in combination. These are not unusual toxins that are only found in laboratories or in very rare places. These are such things as nitrates, things that are used to wash our clothes. A small and low level dose at a certain time can be devastating on the life of a child who is developing or a fetus that is developing.

There is much we do not know and are responsible for. It is our responsibility as legislators, as members of parliament, to make sure we gather the information we need to make decisions which will protect our environment. Over the last years the Liberal government has withdrawn funding from study in the Arctic.

At present no universities have cold rooms. The University of Alberta is actually reactivating its cold room. The rest of universities have turned their cold rooms, which were places to study the effects of colder areas, into storage areas.

Other circumpolar countries have scooped up our scientists just because we would not fund the kind of research we need into the effects of toxins and pollutants in the Arctic. Finland has taken some of our premier scientists in the area of studying our cold climate. The north forms a huge part of Canada and the rest of Canada is a cold place as well. We need that research. We need that knowledge which we have abandoned.

Our children are exposed to toxins through the wind and the air, toxins that we have not produced in our country. The north is disproportionately affected by them. Children are affected by toxins in toys, gasoline fumes, food and the air we breathe. They do not have the capacity to deal with them. Their bodies have not developed enough strength to withstand the assault of toxins from many different sources.

All of us can probably withstand some toxic exposure in small amounts at certain times, but no one can withstand a constant exposure from various areas when their immune systems have not developed enough to deal with them.

The north is particularly vulnerable to toxins, but politically it is particularly vulnerable because it is not well represented. For the huge area of the north there are three members of parliament and two senators. As it stands, neither of those senators has lived in the north for over 20 years. It is kind of tenuous to think of their connection with life in the north.

The biggest issue we need to deal with is hormone disrupting toxins which are now rampant in our environment. On a personal level, I do not let my sons drink milk out of plastic cartons any more. I do not want to take the chance of what that could do to their future or their ability to father children as they get older.

As legislators we cannot let this pass by and think that someone will take care of it. I find shocking that we would lessen the health of our children and would not do everything we could as legislators to make sure our environment is safe for our children.

In closing, it is an incredible shame that closure was invoked on this legislation because it is critical for our future and for our children. The legislation was gutted shamelessly and we are expected to applaud ineffectual legislation that is nothing more than a whitewash when what Canadian citizens want is true, enforceable environmental protection for our future and for our children.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-32 at report stage.

Given the number of amendments, one might well wonder why, in the face of so much criticism, the government is bent on getting the bill through before the House rises for the summer, something which is scheduled for mid-June.

There is something improvized about all this, despite the drawn-out process, because the federal government has long wanted to extend its jurisdiction over the environment.

On the face of it, no one will contest the fact that we must take an interest in matters affecting the environment. Climatic conditions that are changing quickly and the number of devastating events related to different environmental conditions raise questions about the causes of these phenomena and particularly about what we must do to make up for all the damage we have caused in recent years.

I am well placed to speak about this. In my riding, in Rouyn-Noranda, we have made a signal change, and a good thing, because living conditions were deteriorating very rapidly until one day people decided to fight to improve their environmental quality of life.

At the time, many stakeholders said that Noranda would shut down but, today, on the contrary, it is alive and very well, and the quality of life in Rouyn-Noranda has changed dramatically in 10 or 15 years.

We can therefore meet this environmental challenge if we roll up our sleeves. Our businesses are also capable of adapting and developing environmental technology before others do.

In areas where some employers now have a tendency to take undue advantage of easy operating conditions, with very low environmental standards, people will also, sooner or later, take matters in their hands and demand better living conditions. Obviously, there will be upward pressure on environmental standards.

Since people's concern about this debate is increasing, the federal government, which is suddenly acting more like a business, sees in this some sort of opportunity to extend its action into people's lives, ignoring the other actors that are already there. In this case, the provinces have an important and crucial role to play in the environment, which the federal government seems to be ignoring increasingly, and very likely with the consent of many provinces.

This is not the case for all the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has greater aspirations than to remain a mere province. Several provinces are abdicating their responsibility, but this is not the case with Quebec, which aspires to much more.

In this bill, as in many other intrusions, the federal government is extending its jurisdiction little by little. It had the opportunity and has already done so many times in the Criminal Code with respect to the environment, but it wants to carry this even a little further with standards, objectives and mostly, the need to honour international agreements or international commitments made by Canada.

This illustrates a problem that was in the media in the last few months for the provinces, and particularly for Quebec. It is extremely frustrating to have someone speak and make commitments on our behalf at the international level and then ask us to fulfil them, when in many cases, Quebec and other provinces were not allowed to take part as much as they would have liked in the setting of the goals Canada has been promoting at the world level.

The provinces were unable to directly take part in the discussions or the negotiations, but in practice they are the ones that have to manage the new initiatives without having had the opportunity to set the parameters and the goals and to develop an environmental strategy.

A lot of my constituents work in the pulp and paper and the mining industries, two areas where environmental regulation is extremely important. Meeting goals is not the main problem these people have. They are faced with two kinds of problems. They often have two sets of goals to meet. It is not always easy to determine which set of regulations, the federal or the provincial, takes precedence.

On the one hand, these people have to adjust to an environmental context or to environmental standards that vary from one level of government to the other, because there is always some kind of overlap, whatever the substances involved.

On the other hand, when we tell them how they can meet those standards, it annoys them tremendously. We can tell them not to go over so many parts per million of a given chemical, but they should have sufficient latitude and flexibility to be able to adapt approaches in the most competitive way possible.

We often see now Environment Canada or other departments go in the field to tell people how to go about it, showing how one way is better that the other, and all that slows the process down a lot.

There is yet another greater danger to not taking care of the environment. There is a danger of over bureaucratizing our actions in that sector, making them slow and ineffective most of the time.

The danger is often greater because in most of the provinces, there will be two levels of bureaucracy that will try and expand their role in the environment sector. We will eventually have to face many rules, standards, and ways to meet them, a great deal of confusion and difficulty for the businesses in meeting them, and all sorts of legal challenges.

All this does not seem to bother the federal government too much. The federal government no longer cares about respecting jurisdictions. All that matters is that the commitments and goals it will make and negotiate on the international scene be met.

By the way, Canada has not taken a strong leadership on environmental issues in recent years. It has not acted as a leader in that area. Though it has taken an active part in negotiations, this government cannot be considered as having acted as a true leader in respect of environmental standards. The same holds true for human rights.

Commercial interests took precedence over numerous concerns of this government, which had taken the opposite stand when it was on this side of the House, when the Progressive Conservatives were in power. Ironically, there is a remarkable continuity on some aspects of international trade: the positions held by one party were adopted by the other as soon as it was elected.

What concerns me is the issue for which I am responsible, federal-provincial relations. We see here what we have seen on several other issues. The recent framework agreement on social union was in the same vein: provinces, in exchange for money that would allow them to administer programs—which have nothing to do with the environment in that case, but deal with health and other areas—accepted to let the federal government play a greater part as a planner for the whole of Canada.

It is also true for the environment, as we can see. Several provinces are being very discrete, they say nothing, often because their respective populations consider the federal government as the true national government and wish to see it fulfil that role. In Quebec, we have a completely different view.

For Quebecers, be they federalists or sovereignists, the most important government is the provincial one. It is the one closest to them. It is the one they monitor the most; this has its advantages and disadvantages, but it is good for democracy that people keep a close eye on their government, and the people of Quebec do exactly that.

This habit, this capacity to influence decisions are probably greater there than they are here. It is a framework that stakeholders know better. That government is much closer to the people and can better satisfy its environmental needs and expectations.

This trend will bring the federal government to play a greater role. And this is only the beginning. The federal government has one great quality, it is very patient. Whenever it invades another jurisdiction, it does so very progressively, but irreversibly. In the end, we see there is not much provincial jurisdiction left.

In the environmental area, there is a great risk of the federal government becoming the sole player because it is the one acting on the international scene; it will implement international agreements and commitments, it will define the regulations developed by cabinet. These will not necessarily be passed by the members, but rather by cabinet.

For all those reasons, we must oppose this bill, unless it is substantially amended as my colleague proposed. Otherwise, we will have to vote against this bill.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak on this important legislation. Like my colleagues, I want to commend the hon. member for Jonquière for her work and the way she got many members involved in this important process.

It is not a surprise for the members of this House to see the members of the Bloc Quebecois attack the jurisdictional intrusion this legislation constitutes. Is it because we are constantly concerned by the constitutional issue? No. If we feel it is important for Quebec to keep the powers and the flexibility it has as a government, it is for reasons of efficiency.

It is too often forgotten here in Ottawa that it is not enough to draft legislation or to speak on the environment to get something concrete done. On the contrary, we have every reason to fear the effects of this bill on the environment.

Let us recognize that an act whose enforcement and regulations is left solely to the cabinet offers no guarantee to Quebecers and Canadians, and for a very good reason. I remind members that in a previous life I was the vice-president of a central labour body and responsible for occupational safety and health. It is not too far-fetched to compare both these domains.

In the case of occupational health and safety, which has been associated with labour, had the privy council in London not confirmed the provinces' jurisdiction in 1925, the federal government would have had jurisdiction in this area. I do not even dare imagine what it would have been like. Working in that area made me understand that changes dealing with the environment, both within and outside businesses, are made only if businesses want to make such changes or if they are forced to do so by a union.

Of course, inspectors will visit the workplace, which is important, but the enforcement of such a law cannot depend solely on inspectors. Since we are talking here about the whole environment of businesses, what is needed is social involvement. It is just an illusion to vote here in favour of a text, as strong as it may be, thinking that we will change things simply by giving this responsibility to the federal cabinet. To a certain extent, it is like thinking that words, as strong as they may be, are equivalent to real changes.

Making real changes in the environment requires clear objectives. It requires co-operation from businesses and pressure from the people. Without the latter, clear objectives will not be set and things will not change within businesses. It also requires co-operation from unions, from community groups and from non-profit organizations. There is a whole social context involved.

Where can this group, composed of those who can apply pressure, best exert its influence? It is not at the federal government level. Protesting in front of a building here will not change what is going on at Alcan, in Chicoutimi. Important changes have been made.

But if we look at history, it is the stakeholders, that is the organizations, unions and journalists, who bring about change. Quebec stakeholders are the most active and relentless, not only when a bill is passed, but at all times. I have never seen anything like it anywhere else in Canada.

The best proof of this is that this government was able to cut 42% of the environment's budget. Did we hear loud protests because of the dangers of such cuts? No, because the greater the distance between the legislation and those it may affect, the greater the leeway available to those who will be able to exert pressure and lobby.

The best way to effect change in the environment is by having people take charge and exert pressure on the government that is closest to them. I am proud of what the Government of Quebec has done in many fields. There are other fields where much remains to be done, but the Government of Quebec cannot change the way the BAPE works without causing a general outcry. There is a vigilance that could not be ensured otherwise.

We are deluding ourselves if we are thinking that by passing a law, as strong as it may be, we can guarantee results and change. This is why I regret so much that this bill is not putting more emphasis on harmonization between governments and is not allowing those who are more likely to push for change to have their say. Instead of this, the federal government goes as far as saying that, following negotiations with a provincial government, and I quote clause 9(9):

No agreement made under this section shall limit or restrict the carrying out of any action the Minister

—the federal minister, of course—

deems necessary for the administration and enforcement of this act, including the conduct of inspections or investigations.

We can see what a lovely thing we have here. The minister goes into a company and finds the levels too high. Come now.

It is most regrettable that this reform of the environment legislation has given rise to what my colleague from Jonquière will not feel it is an exaggeration to call a circus. The environment is an extremely serious matter. Canada is far from being a leader in this area, as we know. We saw that in Kyoto, where it backtracked instead of advancing. No one is sure that the new objectives set will be attained. This bill is not a guarantee in any way whatsoever. The real guarantee lies once again with the social, and to a certain degree, the economic relationships that will develop.

This is a Quebec matter, unfortunately, but that is how it is. It is totally illogical to believe that taking power from Quebec will step up any pressure whatsoever to make the businesses, groups and individuals responsible for the deterioration in the environment change their ways.

I will close with a general remark. In this parliament, people often have the impression that merely talking about something and passing some legislative text will have a concrete effect on reality. However, we must ask ourselves how indeed we will be in a position to bring about real change. The way to do it is not by taking power from where it can be best exercised, under the watchful eye of the people.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. It could not have come at a better time, and this is one of the reasons I am interested in the debate.

There is an important problem in my riding of Trois-Rivières with regard to the National Defence Proof and Experimental Test Establishment at Lake Saint-Pierre, where testing is conducted in co-operation with SNC Industrial Technologies Inc. This proof and experimental test establishment has been in existence for over 50 years, since 1947.

In this context, I would like to pay tribute to the people who have been the engine and the soul of the movement known as the lakeside residents' action group, set up in Pointe-du-Lac, namely Messrs. Philippe Giroule and Jacques Brouillard, for their tenacity and perseverance. They have been fighting for eight years to expose the activities of the National Defence Department in the Lake Saint-Pierre area, which activities of course entail pollution and an attack on the lake's extraordinary ecosystem.

I would just like to pay tribute to these people who have shown great tenacity. They have lobbied diligently over the last eight years to make both the federal and Quebec governments aware of the problem.

Just as an indication, over eight years, they have had to deal with five national defence ministers and five environment ministers in the Government of Canada. This goes to show how persevering they have been.

Personally, I had to get involved. On June 12, 1996, I proudly presented a petition signed by 3,000 people who were condemning the activities of the Department of National Defence regarding this issue. I can say that the situation is changing.

As the name of that centre suggests, experiments and tests are conducted on shells, both inside and outside the facility. It is the activities taking place outside that pose a problem. They literally shell Lake Saint-Pierre. A large number of these shells are live. The shelling takes place in winter and summer. In the summer, shells fall directly into the water and sink to the bottom. In the winter, they stay on the ice. They either remain there until the spring, when they sink to the bottom of the lake or, and this is more worrisome in a way, the current can move these shells hundreds of kilometres downstream. This makes the whole issue even more problematic, because there is increasing awareness regarding the cleaning and the safety measures that are required.

A tragedy occurred in 1982. One person was killed and nine were injured, when someone mistook a shell for a log to be used in a bonfire, on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. The person tossed the shell into the fire. The shell then exploded with the tragic consequences I just mentioned. Other similar incidents could occur. It is urgent that the government take action.

I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Jonquière, who dealt with this issue with great skill, along with the hon. member for Joliette, who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence, to ensure that the federal government be formally made aware of the situation. This was done through the Standing Committee on the Environment.

The committee passed a resolution recommending to the government that a moratorium be put in place effective January 1, 2000. We personally would have preferred it be put in effect immediately. It will be interesting to see whether this government has the political will to put a stop to these activities.

It will be interesting to see how politics deal with this resolution, which appears very positive and would be in public interest.

The Department of National Defence must stop considering Lake Saint-Pierre a garbage can. Lake Saint-Pierre is in fact an extraordinary ecosystem. It has been recognized by the United Nations, through UNESCO. It is from this perspective it must be seen and not from that of the Department of National Defence, as has been the case up to now.

I would also like to look at the very important question of Bill C-32 from a constitutional perspective.

I, who consider myself an old and longstanding sovereignist, consider Bill C-32 part of a new initiative and a new tack taken by the federal government, which is weaving a canvas in which the Canada of tomorrow, the Canada of the years 2000, the Canada of the next century, will be a centralized and unitarian Canada in which the provincial governments will become branch offices, and, to use the term of my colleague opposite, the minister responsible for regional development, partners that are no doubt given better treatment than the hospitals, school boards and the chambers of commerce, but partners all the same.

This is what the future holds for the Canadian provinces. As my colleague from Témiscamingue said earlier, the federal government acts very efficiently and slowly. Slowly but surely, the federal government is spinning its web in order to make sure that the decisions are made here and no longer in Nova Scotia, Vancouver, or Toronto, and certainly not in Quebec City, so that this country can be effective internationally. It has no choice.

This is what Canada must do. It is what provincial governments will probably have to recognize in provincial back rooms, but it is a disaster for Quebec, which is a nation, to see the Canadian government spinning its web to ensure that the decisions are made here.

In the case of Bill C-32, it is not complicated, because the federal government is forced to play its hand. We find this political hand clearly set out in paragraph 9(1):

The Minister may negotiate an agreement with a government or with an aboriginal people with respect to the administration of this Act.

The reservation that will ensure that Canada will be administered the way the federal government wants it to be administered is to be found in paragraph 9(9), which reads as follows:

No agreement made under this section shall limit or restrict the carrying out of any action the Minister—

The federal minister, of course.

—deems necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act, including the conduct of inspections or investigations.

This is being done systematically, with the complicity, the collaboration and the blessing of Canadian institutions, the Canadian administrative structure, particularly the supreme court, which handed down a ruling overturning decisions by Quebec's courts, which recognized the supremacy of the Government of Quebec with respect to the environment.

Historically, this was a shared jurisdiction, as recognized by the Quebec courts and the courts of appeal. We now have the supreme court telling us that, from now on, the federal government will have ultimate jurisdiction in this area.

There was also the environment commissioner, who ruled, in connection with pulp and paper, that, in the event of negligence on the part of a province, the federal government had the last word. The federal government is free to interfere in provincial matters. The other provinces may feel this is a good thing. It is a Canadian issue and concerns them. In fact, if I were federalist, I would be as fond as centralizing as Trudeau was. But this is quite upsetting to Quebec as a nation.

This is not the first time that such an attempt is made. We have to realize that. This is where the government machinery is really efficient.

It happened recently in education, with the millennium scholarship program, in a recognized area of provincial jurisdiction.

It has also happened recently in the area of justice, with the Young Offenders Act, a field where the province of Quebec is doing exceptionally well and where it is now being told by the federal government to move aside and implement the federal policy, a more punitive policy than that of Quebec, where there is a coalition in this area.

It has happened in the revenue area, where a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will soon offer to collect taxes on behalf of the various levels of government, not only the federal government, but also the provinces, the municipalities, and even to act on behalf of private corporations that would want to use its services.

This only goes to prove that here, in Ottawa, centralization is still the main focus.

We regularly see the intrusion in the area of health care, where the government of Quebec has taken some very innovative measures that the federal government is now implementing by setting national standards from coast to coast, without respecting Quebec's precedence in this area of jurisdiction.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to this bill entitled Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

I had the privilege—and I say privilege because it was quite an experience, as you will soon understand—to be associated with the standing committee on the environment, through my colleague, the member for Jonquière. Since she was snowed under with work, she asked me on a few occasions if I could replace her.

Being a member of the standing committee on natural resources, you will understand that there is a certain relationship between the work of these two committees with regard to the environment. It is with pleasure that I took part in the work of the standing committee on the environment.

I will say from the outset that I see two kinds of problems with this bill. The first problem is excessive centralization on the part of the federal government in an area of shared jurisdiction between the federal state, the provinces and the state of Quebec. The second problem concerns the intrinsic quality of the bill.

We can ask ourselves a couple of questions. Is this a good, solid and reliable bill with predictable consequences on the environment, businesses and society? Have the various measures been properly harmonized?

I will first talk about this issue regarding the quality of the bill. As you know and as several of my colleagues mentioned, it was an awesome task for the committee. Indeed hundreds of amendments were introduced in committee.

My background is computer science. I am used to studying issues in a structured and orderly manner, carefully analysing all the consequences. I must say that to my amazement we went from one amendment to the next in a helter-skelter way. It was crazy, not stark crazy, but crazy enough.

I am smiling now, but there was nothing funny in all that. The two and a half to three hours we spent skipping from one amendment to the next was the most foolish experience I have ever had. Either the officials, the experts who should or could have explained things to us, were not prepared to give us the necessary information or someone somewhere was not really willing to discuss these amendments. So for two and a half or three hours, we merely went through all the amendments without really studying them because we were not prepared.

At the end of these three hours, nothing had been accomplished. Worse yet, we managed to strike down an amendment we had agreed on at a previous meeting. We were going backward.

I realize these issues are complex. The bill touches on a great many areas. It touches on land, water and air. It deals with all kinds of pollutants, gaseous, liquid, solid, radioactive, living or inert pollutants. It touches on energy issues. It touches on shipping, road transportation. It touches on everything.

In this respect one can admire the scope and the extent of concerns this bill is trying to answer. Believe me, I cannot say the bill does not raise the important environmental protection issues we must deal with.

This is not where the problem lies. The problem is that they are being badly addressed. I am going to say something now that may be a bit heavy-handed, but I feel it is very much to the point.

I do not believe there is anyone in this House, in any department, or in any of the specialized consulting firms, who is in a position to tell us straight out all the ins and outs of this bill, what the consequences will be, and what the good and bad effects.

According to my perceptions, this is a highly complex bill, and one which has not, unfortunately, received all the careful attention it ought to have had in committee. Not because my fellow MPs were not prepared to put the effort into it, but simply because the work was carried out, directed, supervised and disturbed in such a way that it was not possible to do a proper, reliable job.

I believe I said this in committee, and I will repeat it here: if a plane had been designed the way this bill was, no member of this House and no public servant would dare set foot in it. It would be too risky.

This is my perception of the situation we find ourselves in with this bill I repeat, the environment is something precious. This bill addresses areas that must be of great concern to us, without resolving them. This is where the danger lies in passing it.

The second important issue is the overcentralizing done by the federal government through this legislation.

The minister, the cabinet, the government and the public servants here in Ottawa will enjoy tremendous powers. They will be the sole masters of a ship whose operating capability we do not know. The problem is that they are taking us on board with them. It would not be so bad if we could get off.

When two levels of government, that is a federal and a provincial government, in this case Quebec, since this is where I live, share responsibilities regarding the environment, it is a good thing for them to co-ordinate their efforts. Bill C-32 could have the same effect as a steamroller.

Everything is provided in this bill so that the federal government can have the upper hand regarding the environment. In the context of globalization, Canada must, as a country, ratify a number of international agreements and must therefore have the powers to implement such agreements on its own territory. However, the federal government does it against the will of all those involved, by passing a bill that will give it such powers.

In Canada as we know it, there are big and small provinces, rich and not so rich provinces, provinces that would like Ottawa to take responsibilities on their behalf and others that prefer to assume these responsibilities themselves.

The bill does not respect that principle. This is why the Bloc Quebecois cannot support it. The environment would be much better served and protected by those directly concerned. Then, arrangements could be made with our neighbours.

In short, the bill must be rejected for two reasons. First, it is bad legislation. Second, it does not respect the way the federation should work under the Constitution.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would, right off, like to thank my colleague from Jonquière, who has worked so hard and with such determination to do her job as legislator on this committee. She has given us a very enlightened version of the events surrounding this bill. I would like to thank her for having shown us the negative effects of this bill.

I would like to speak of the elements of Bill C-32 that relate to health, more specifically toxic substances.

On May 27, the federal government announced with great pomp funding of $10.9 million for research on toxic substances, as part of the toxic substance research initiative. This organization has a budget of $40 million. It is a program that is intended to consolidate the means the federal government has at its disposal in health sciences and the environment. This has to last three years. During fiscal year 1999-2000, the Liberal government will fund 81 research projects in areas of research that are a priority for the toxic substance research initiative.

It was high time. I think the government has to be consistent when it looks out for the national welfare of its citizens. This government has been dragging its feet on environmental research, toxic substances found in water, in the air and in soil.

It asks no questions as to what is happening, why new diseases are developing and why more and more people have problems with asthma and younger people increasingly have allergies. There is an increase in breast cancer. It used to be that breast cancer occurred primarily among post-menopausal women over fifty. Now it is occurring even in young women. Some questions are in order.

I know that there is private research into these questions going on in certain laboratories. Is it the air we breathe, the food we eat, or toxic substances on our planet?

Finally, with much ceremony, the government announces that grants will be handed out. Of course, I am in favour of grants so that scientists can conduct research into toxic substances, but people will agree it is perhaps a bit late. Better late than never, but this government, which calls itself responsible, should have given these grants sooner.

We have been hearing about this kind of research and grants since 1993 and suddenly, on May 27, when they are about to introduce Bill C-32, they tell us they are going to increase grants and give the Centre de recherche sur les substances toxiques $10 million. That is why we are saying it was high time.

While introducing Bill C-32, they announce grants. Might this not be an attempt to help the medicine go down, or silence certain growing criticisms of the federal government in this area?

The federal government is apportioning this $40 million out over three years in order to make several announcements. As I was saying, with the good old federal government, national research and the support of clinical research for our scientists that might help us and thus prevent these increases in diseases is not free.

I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you and other members of the House know people who have friends or family members suffering from breast cancer. We have such people among our colleagues. The scientists are more and more convinced that the source is the air we breathe or the food we eat.

My colleague from Saint-Jean has just referred to some studies of the Inuit in the far north where mercury was found in breast milk. What effect will this have on a child's health? Where does this mercury come from? It seems to me one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.

That is why we are saying it is high time. Why turn this into something political, protecting their backsides because they were incapable of presenting any sensible kind of bill? This bill is inconsistent. Why did they not present us with a proper policy to address the harmful effects of toxic substances? This bill has been under study for months and now there are in excess of 500 amendments.

If it had been some other party that came up with such a bill, the Liberals would have been as scandalised as we. Why not start again from scratch? There is nothing wrong with that.

As a number of my colleagues have concluded, one may conclude from this that the government is trying to get its hands on more power. In the context of globalization, we know it needs powers that it does not have at the present time. In order to be sure it gets them, it will present us with bills regardless of what amendments we have proposed. That is what they always do, and it is scandalous, with the pretext that it is good governance and in the interests of national safety.

We on this side of the House are nobody's fools. When one sees the highly centralist nature of this bill, one may well ask some questions.

Let me provide a little background on Bill C-32. It was introduced at first reading on March 12, 1998, to replace the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This tactic by the Liberal government is another move towards excessive centralization.

The Liberals' approach is to do what they said they would in the September 1997 throne speech. They are relentlessly interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In so doing, they are showing their contempt for provincial jurisdictions when it comes to the environment.

This is unacceptable when the health of people is at stake. We needed a bill that would have finally put a stop to the arrival of new diseases from everywhere. As I said earlier, we are constantly confronted with new health problems. It is our children who must grow up in that environment.

The Bloc Quebecois, understandably, cannot support this bill, which should be immediately withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 27, the questions on the motions in Group No. 6 are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deemed deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 7.

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

moved:

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-32, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 35 with the following:

“176.1(1) applies, provided the Minister has been authorized by the Governor in Council by virtue of paragraph 166(3)( a ) or 176(3)( a ) to publish that notice.”