Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a number of points have been raised in speaking to this group of motions and comments earlier.
I want to draw members' attention to the fact that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was a position created by the government in 1995. It was mentioned by one of the NDP members that government after government has been ignoring the recommendations of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. That position was created by the government.
Criticisms of the commissioner laid against the government for its actions are addressed in this bill. If that is the concern, members should support Bill C-32. Twenty three thousand substances must be examined. There are strict time lines in the CEPA legislation. Pollution prevention is enshrined in the legislation. This is what the commissioner told us; this is what the bill is doing.
Let us talk about some other motions before us at the present time. The BQ want to exempt waste provisions from Bill C-32 from applying to the provinces that have legislation governing the movement of waste. Once again the Bloc Quebecois is attempting to rewrite the Constitution by stripping the federal government's jurisdiction over Canada's international borders and interprovincial trade. Canada has international commitments under the Basel convention relating to the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Bill C-32 is necessary to ensure that Canada meets those obligations.
PC and Reform motions have been proposed to exclude shipments of waste destined for disposal, including hazardous waste, to the United States from requirements for export reduction plans. Let us be clear. Bill C-32 provides the authority to require exporters of waste that is being shipped for disposal to prepare and implement export reduction plans. The PC and Reform parties want to exempt any shipments to the United States from these requirements. The fact is that Canada since 1985 has not shipped hazardous waste for disposal to any country other than the United States. The PC and Reform Party motions therefore would nullify this authority.
This means that Canada would not be able to meet its obligations under the Basel convention. It also contradicts the pollution prevention principle, the thrust of this bill. We do want to prevent pollution and the generation of waste so it does not have to be shipped to the United States.
One of the motions before us today is a regulation rollover motion, Motion No. 233. There are 24 regulations under the existing CEPA. These regulations cover a wide variety of toxic substances and pollutants. They have eliminated the use of lead in gasoline. They have banned substances from the earth's ozone layer such as CFCs. They have reduced by 99% the amount of harmful dioxins and furans in pulp and paper effluent. These are good things.
To proclaim the new act into force all these regulations would have to conform to the provisions of Bill C-32. The government is working on this task to ensure early proclamation following royal assent of this legislation.
To address unforeseen circumstances that might delay the rollover of the regulations or that would create a regulatory gap, government Motion No. 233 proposes the addition of a clause that would allow any provisions of the regulations inconsistent with Bill C-32 to continue in force for two years from the date of royal assent.
Let us talk about PC Motion No. 214 to alter the residual clause in part 9. Let us be clear. Provincial government environmental regulations do not apply to the federal government. Because of this situation CEPA provides authority to regulate federal operations and lands. One of the shortcomings of the existing CEPA identified by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in its 1995 report “It's About Our Health!” is that environmental protection regulations that apply to the federal House require the concurrence of the affected minister.
As a result of this requirement for concurrence, the amount of activity under this part of CEPA has been limited. Bill C-32 removes this requirement for concurrence. The effect of this PC motion would be to reinsert a requirement for concurrence since there may be instances where the affected minister might not agree that CEPA is the best vehicle for action. Based on past experience this could result in delay and deadlock, something the members opposite have said they do not want. Since part 9 covers all federal departments and operations this decision making is appropriate in the hands of the governor in council and not just a small group of ministers.
This will probably be the last speech from this side on this piece of legislation on the report stage motions before us. I urge all hon. members, if they want this bill passed, if they want this bill to do the right thing for the environment, if they want to give the federal government the tools to make a difference for today and for future generations, support the changes being proposed by the government. CEPA can do the job to prevent pollution from occurring in the first place. It will enable us to deal with regulating toxic substances in our country and to virtually eliminate those deadly substances that none of us want.
Nine out of ten are already eliminated in Canada, things like DDT, but we are still seeing the effect in breast milk, in the arctic and in other places. We will have to do better. This bill will allow us to do better.