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.