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.