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.