Debates of May 31st, 1999

The House resumed from May 27 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. 4.

Division No. 455

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are 10 amendments in Group No. 4 which deal with several issues. One of the issues is cost effectiveness.

Motion No. 9 proposes to amend the bill to reinsert cost effectiveness into the definition of the precautionary principle. The internationally accepted definition of the precautionary principle was endorsed in Rio by over 150 countries including Canada. This Rio definition of sustainable development states the following:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

This definition is now clearly recognized as a fundamental tenet of international environmental law. The government response stated that this definition of the precautionary principle would be incorporated into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

When Bill C-32 was tabled in the House the Rio definition of sustainable development including cost effectiveness was included in the bill. However, when the bill went to the standing committee some committee members voted to change this internationally accepted definition by removing all references to cost effectiveness.

Dropping cost effectiveness from the precautionary principle will cause major problems for the future for both government and industry. Industry must be able to implement sustainable development measures and remain competitive and profitable.

Our approach to the environment must be balanced. We need a strong and health economy to take concrete action to protect our environment. These two work hand in hand. Simply put, if the money is not there, we cannot and will not take action.

When there is no scientific certainty, which occurs in many cases and is the essence of many voluntary agreements and MOUs which the government has signed with industry, industry will take cost effective actions to protect the environment. However when science provides a clearer picture and demonstrates that damage can occur then more onerous measures are considered and will be applied.

The precautionary principle allows Canadians to proceed with caution in the interim phase. However when we eliminate cost effectiveness from the equation it is likely that we will lose the voluntary commitment of industry, which is critical to the continued protection of the environment.

One of the reasons Reform opposed Bill C-74 in the last parliament was the fact that the old CEPA bill would have made it too difficult and costly for industry to implement realistically. This is not a question of industry or the environment. It is a question of what is in the best interest of all Canadians. The environment is not a black or white issue. It is grey. Protecting the environment affects all Canadians.

I am pleased to note that the government supports our position on sustainable development and has proposed an identical amendment to Reform Motion No. 9 with Liberal Motion No. 8. However I am concerned that the government has failed to reinsert references to cost effectiveness that were contained throughout the bill when it was originally tabled in the House. These sections were critical to the delicate balance which was struck when the government consulted with industry and environment to draft Bill C-32.

When Bill C-32 was originally tabled in the House cost effectiveness was incorporated into a number of sections of the bill including administrative duties, information gathering provisions and pollution prevention planning. Some members of the standing committee voted to eliminate these sections on cost effectiveness from the bill. These amendments will not promote greater environmental action or attention. They will not create greater financial resources for government and industry to take action because Canadians simply do not have the means to take action beyond what is reasonable and cost effective.

In fact these amendments to the act may backfire by creating a reluctance for partners to sign agreements that are neither cost effective nor realistic. Without these amendments chances are that we will see less, not more action.

Our Motions Nos. 10, 16 and 47 in this group propose to address this concern by reinserting cost effectiveness into the bill. Bill C-32 must integrate the principles of sustainable development including environmental, economic and social considerations.

Moving through this group of amendments, our Motion No. 18 contained within this group proposes to eliminate a new section in the bill that was added in committee. The section which we are proposing to eliminate simply makes little sense and opens the bill to gross misinterpretation. This sections states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the taking of any action to protect the environment or human health for the purposes of this Act.

This is simply far too open ended. Our amendment proposes to reinstate the original clause put forward by the government when Bill C-32 was tabled in the House more than a year ago. The original section provided legal direction as to which legislation would take precedence if there were a duplication between acts which provide for the protection of the environment and human health. When this section was removed it eliminated the decision making mechanism from the act.

As well, Motion No. 22 in this grouping put forward by the NDP proposes to integrate a new definition of hormone disrupting substances into the definitions of the act. We will not support this amendment as the proposed definition of hormone disrupting substances is inconsistent with the internationally accepted working definition originally proposed in the legislation. The internationally accepted definition is:

Hormone disrupting substance means an exogenous substance that causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, consequent to changes in endocrine function.

We have put this definition of hormone disrupting substances forward in our amendments to the bill and therefore will not support Motion No. 22.

Motion No. 23, also put forward by the NDP, proposes a definition of recyclable material in the interpretation section of the act. The proposed definition reads:

Recyclable material means any material or aggregate of materials that, at any particular time and place, has use or value”.

Anything can be interpreted as having use or value. This definition of recyclable material is clearly unacceptable. It is too broad and open to be interpreted as meaning any thing or any substance.

Motion No. 24 also proposes a new definition in the act where it proposes to introduce a definition of waste. The proposal was to define waste as any solid, liquid or gaseous material or materials, or a combination of them, discarded or intended to be discarded as useless and valueless, but excludes recyclable material. Similar to Motion No. 23, the proposed definition is far too vague and far to open-ended. Such definitions are redundant as they serve absolutely no purpose when they are so open to interpretation. These amendments serve little purpose in fulfilling what is the intended mandate of the legislation.

We do not support amendments to the bill which extend the application of the bill to deal with all waste, particularly when dealing with exports. Our amendments to the bill propose that the section of the bill dealing with export of hazardous waste be limited to just that.

There is one item from this group of amendments that must be addressed and that is the inclusion of cost-effectiveness throughout the bill. I believe this is critical and hope members from all sides of the House will give this issue serious consideration before voting.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 27, 1999, the questions on the motions in Group No. 4 are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 5. Pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 27, the motions in Group No. 5 are deemed moved and seconded.

This groups contains Motions Nos. 17, 20, 21, 27 to 29, 34, 35, 40, 44, 45, 54, 55, 72, 75 to 79, 82, 92, 98 to 100, 102 to 104, 114, 124, 126, 127, 131, 134, 136, 140 to 145, 152, 157, 158, 162 to 166, 168, 170, 175, 177 to 180, 182, 184, 188, 190, 196, 199, 217 to 224, 226 to 229, 232 and 234 to 236.

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 5 with the following:

“ings arising from health, environmental and”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 16 on page 8 with the following:

“la production de polluants”

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 18 on page 8 with the following: a ) a work or undertaking”

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-32, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 7 on page 12 with the following:

“tones, choisis de la façon”

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-32, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 10 and 11 on page 12 with the following:

“tochtones—sauf inuit—de Terre-Neuve, de l'Île-du-Prince-Edouard, de la Nouvelle-Écosse et du Nouveau-Brunswick,”

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-32, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 39 and 40 on page 12 with the following:

“(2)( c )(i) to (v), the representative of the Inuit or of aboriginal people for the region, as the”

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-32, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 22 on page 18 with the following: d ) un bref exposé des éléments de preuve à l'appui de la”

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-32, in Clause 43, be amended a ) by replacing line 14 on page 26 with the following:

“this Part.” b ) by replacing, in the French version, lines 19 and 20 on page 26 with the following:

“«substance hormonoperturbante» Substance ayant le pouvoir de”

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-32, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 16 to 19 on page 28 with the following:

“ci et de détermination de leurs effets—actuels ou potentiels, à court ou à long terme—sur l'environnement et la santé humaine, ainsi que les mesures de prévention et de lutte contre ces effets.”

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 29 with the following:

“64 or that may become toxic;”

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 37 on page 29 with the following:

“ces en péril ou d'autres espèces fauniques ou”

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-32, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 4 on page 36 with the following:

“partie, utiliser, s'il satisfait à tout ou partie”

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-32, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 12 on page 36 with the following:

“(2) Si le plan utilisé au titre du paragraphe”

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-32, in Clause 68, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 14 on page 41 with the following:

“effectivement ou potentiellement toxique ou”

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-32, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 28 on page 43 with the following:

“effectivement ou potentiellement toxique ou”

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-32, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 14 on page 44 with the following:

“toxicologiques disponibles, des données disponibles sur les activi-”

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-32, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 6 and 7 on page 45 with the following:

“en se fondant sur les renseignements disponibles, celles qui, à leur avis:”

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-32, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 16 on page 45 with the following:

“(2) Si les renseignements disponibles”

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-32, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 22 to 26 on page 45 with the following:

“(3) Lorsqu'ils classent par catégories des substances inscrites sur la liste intérieure, les ministres les examinent afin de déterminer s'il y a lieu de modifier la liste en vue d'y indiquer qu'elles sont assujetties au paragraphe”

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-32, in Clause 76.1, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 27 on page 47 with the following:

“prudence lorsqu'ils procèdent à l'évaluation et aux examens”

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-32, in Clause 78, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 33 on page 50 with the following:

“sauf si une autre disposition de la présente partie”

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-32, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 11 on page 53 with the following:

“mentaires—ac-”

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-32, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 23 and 24 on page 53 with the following:

“précise, les renseignements réglementaires—accompagnés des”

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-32, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 11 and 12 on page 54 with the following:

“chimique subie par une substance dans le cadre de son utilisation ou en raison de son entreposage”

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-32, in Clause 82, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 31 and 32 on page 56 with the following:

“s'applique. Le cas échéant, les paragraphes 81(9) à (13) s'appliquent.”

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-32, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 35 on page 56 with the following:

“re, les renseignements disponibles sur”

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-32, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 2 and 3 on page 57 with the following:

“les ministres évaluent les renseignements disponibles sur une substance, notamment en”

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 16 on page 64 with the following:

“tion (4), the Ministers shall take into consider-”

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-32, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 6 to 8 on page 71 with the following:

“de l'autorité ou à une personne à qui un rapport peut être présenté au titre de l'article 95.”

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-32, in Clause 98, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 12 and 13 on page 72 with the following:

“95(2)( b ) to the extent that that person knowingly or negligently caused or contributed to the”

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-32, in Clause 98, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 27 to 29 on page 72 with the following:

“tion (3) to an extent greater than the extent to which the person knowingly or negligently caused or contributed to the release.”

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-32, in Clause 101, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 26 on page 74 with the following:

“mité avec les règlements pris en vertu du”

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-32, in Clause 102, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 19 on page 75 with the following:

“peut exporter les substances”

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended a ) by replacing line 39 on page 77 with the following:

“with the prescribed information, on or before the date” b ) by replacing line 10 on page 78 with the following:

“with the prescribed information, on or before the date”

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-32, in Clause 108, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 9 on page 81 with the following:

“re, les renseignements disponibles sur”

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-32, in Clause 108, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 15 and 16 on page 81 with the following:

“les ministres évaluent les renseignements disponibles sur un organisme vivant, notam-”

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-32, in Clause 109, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 2 on page 82 with the following:

“ments disponibles, les ministres soup-”

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-32, in Clause 110, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 4 on page 83 with the following:

“ments disponibles sur un organisme”

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-32, in Clause 110, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 24 on page 83 with the following: g ) à l'égard de ces activités, les renseigne-”

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-32, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 30 on page 84 with the following:

“activités, les renseignements qui doivent”

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-32, in Clause 117, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 37 on page 87 with the following:

“désignée par règlement en une concentration supérieu-”

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-32, in Clause 119, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 47 on page 88 with the following:

“conditionneur d'eau présente pour”

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-32, in Clause 119, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 20 to 22 on page 89 with the following: g ) faire rapport au ministre sur les mesures prises en vue de se conformer à l'ordre.”

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-32, in Clause 122, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 14 on page 91 with the following: a ) Rejet délibéré de substances en”

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-32, in Clause 122, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 3 on page 92 with the following:

“objets placés sur le fond des mers,”

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-32, in Clause 129, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 98 with the following:

“necessary for the protection of marine life, any”

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-32, in Clause 129, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 26 on page 98 with the following:

“substances à immerger ou à incinérer;”

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-32, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 4 and 5 on page 100 with the following:

“133. (1) Le texte des permis canadiens et de ses conditions—originales ou modifiées—sont publiés par le ministre dans la Gazette du”

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-32, in Clause 135, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 18 on page 101 with the following:

“lowed for sampling, analysing, testing, measuring or”

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-32, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 16 and 17 on page 103 with the following:

“sell a fuel that does not meet the prescribed requirements.”

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-32, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 28 on page 106 with the following:

“utilisée;”

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-32, in Clause 148, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 7 to 9 on page 108 with the following: g ) faire rapport au ministre sur les mesures prises en vue de se conformer à l'ordre.”

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-32, in Clause 149, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 23 to 25 on page 108 with the following: a ) constructeur ou fabricant, au Canada, de véhicules, moteurs ou équipements;”

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-32, in Clause 149, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 30 on page 108 with the following: c ) importateur au Canada de véhicules, moteurs ou”

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-32, in Clause 155, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 30 on page 111 with the following: a ) destinés à une utilisation au Canada, sur justifica-”

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-32, in Clause 157, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 21 and 22 on page 114 with the following:

“faire donner avis conformément au règlement, au ministre, à”

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-32, in Clause 161, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 7 on page 118 with the following:

“titre du présent article, un texte législatif édicté par un”

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-32, in Clause 170, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 23 on page 124 with the following:

“170. (1) Sa Majesté du chef du Canada peut recouvrer les frais directs et indirects”

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-32, in Clause 175, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 127 with the following:

“175. In this Division, “water”

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-32, in Clause 180, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 29 on page 131 with the following:

“(3) Sous réserve du paragraphe (4), les personnes mentionnées au paragra-”

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-32, in Clause 187, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 34 and 35 on page 135 with the following:

“of a waste or material referred to in paragraph 185(1)( a ), the Minister shall publish in the”

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-32, in Clause 220, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 8 on page 163 with the following: c ) seize any printout or other output for”

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-32, in Clause 260, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 11 and 12 on page 182 with the following:

“(2) La personne citée à comparaître a droit aux indemnités appli-”

Motion No. 219

That Bill C-32, in Clause 284, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 7 on page 189 with the following:

“284. Malgré toute autre disposition de la présente”

Motion No. 220

That Bill C-32, in Clause 287, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 25 and 26 on page 190 with the following:

“contrevenant a fait preuve d'incompétence, de négligence ou d'insouciance;”

Motion No. 221

That Bill C-32, in Clause 287, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 34 and 35 on page 190 with the following:

“i) l'examen de toutes les sanctions applicables qui sont justifiées dans les”

Motion No. 222

That Bill C-32, in Clause 289, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 19 to 21 on page 191 with the following:

“peut surseoir au prononcé de la peine et, compte tenu de la nature de”

Motion No. 223

That Bill C-32, in Clause 296, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 196 with the following:

“(ii) paragraph 272(1)( c ), ( d ) or ( e ),”

Motion No. 224

That Bill C-32, in Clause 306, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 37 on page 201 with the following:

“présente loi ou une enquête sur une”

Motion No. 226

That Bill C-32, in Clause 325, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 31 on page 209 with the following:

“325. Le”

Motion No. 227

That Bill C-32, in Clause 326, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 27 on page 210 with the following:

“tés ou concentrations des rejets -, produits en contenant”

Motion No. 228

That Bill C-32, in Clause 330, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 33 on page 212 with the following:

“par renvoi une norme, caractéristique technique, directive, méthode,”

Motion No. 229

That Bill C-32, in Clause 332, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 36 on page 213 with the following:

“publication les projets de décret, d'arrêté, de règlement ou de texte—autre qu'un règlement—déjà”

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-32, in Clause 346, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 2 on page 218 with the following:

“ment et mort ou blessures”

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-32, in Schedule 997, be amended by replacing, in the French version, the first line of item 4 on page 220 with the following:

“4. Les chlorofluorocarbures complètement halogénés dont la”

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-32, in Schedule 998, be amended by replacing, in the English version, the second line of item 20 of Part 2 on page 224 with the following:

“19.5%, 40%, 50%, 60% active ingredient and dusts containing”

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-32, in Schedule 999, be amended by replacing, in the French version, the first line of item 1 of Part 3 on page 224 with the following:

“1. Les chlorofluorocarbures complètement halogénés dont la for-”

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

Madam Speaker, all the motions relate to French and English concurrence. As the bill was amended during the committee process, we found that in many cases the French and English were no longer equivalent. It is important to all Canadians that the laws are able to be read and interpreted in both official languages and come out with the same meaning.

These motions correct errors that were found during a further review by the Department of Justice.

I trust that all members of this House will be in agreement with a process that is aimed at maintaining the equivalency of the English and the French in the bill. This is very important, and I trust that there will be unanimous agreement in this House.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the motions in Group No. 5.

There are many motions with which we agree in that group. There are also some with which we disagree. Consequently, we will vote against the group of motions, but we want to point out that we support French and English concurrence Motions Nos. 20, 21, 27, 28, 34, 40, 45, 76 to 79, 82, 92, 140 to 145, 217 to 224.

Motions Nos. 54 and 55 concern Part 4 of the act dealing with pollution prevention. The use of pollution prevention plans would centralize control over environmental matters in the hands of the federal government, and we cannot support that approach.

We will vote against Motion No. 124, dealing with clause 96 under the heading, “Release of Toxic Substances”, because the deletion of certain terms deprives the provinces of their role and overlooks provincial provisions.

As for Motion No. 199, dealing with the export of material, we proposed amendments that were rejected by the committee. Therefore, we are opposed to any changes, even to ensure French-English concurrence, on this issue.

Motion No. 180 concerns Division 5 entitled “Vehicle, Engine and Equipment Emissions”, and involves adjustments between the French and English versions. However, since we are opposed to that division of the act, we cannot support this block of amendments.

With respect to clauses 72 and 75, the proposed concurrence amendments indicate some serious problems of comprehension. They do not clarify particularly well the discrepancy between the French and the English. So, we cannot support them.

We have reached Group No. 5 in which the government has proposed a whole lot of concurrence amendments and new amendments to Bill C-32. This bill, it should be pointed out, concerns pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

It is surprising that the government, after allowing a committee to study amendments for weeks, arrives at report stage and suddenly begins to table motions concerning vital sectors such as pollution prevention, toxic waste, substance exports, vehicle, engine and equipment emissions, and so on.

We can see the government did not structure this bill properly from the start so that, finally, in Canada, Quebec and the other provinces might have the elements they need to enable them to oversee environment policy within their jurisdiction.

Throughout the process, I could not help but notice this government really did not want to act. It spent its time saying “We will endeavour”. In life, either you act or you do not. I note that this government does not honour areas of jurisdiction under its own Constitution.

It is curious that today a member of the Bloc Quebecois is telling a Liberal government that it should honour its own Constitution. As a sovereignty party, we think that sovereignty within legislation that must be properly implemented begins with agreements with the authorities that are best able to make decisions and are closest to the real problems of the individuals and the society in general.

I cannot help but note that this government did not even deign to act. In the first version of Bill C-32 studied in committee, the government claimed to want to act, to want to do things. I thought that was good, and I took part to give them a hand so that the legislation on environment and protection would be good. As the days, weeks and months passed, they changed the word “act” to “perhaps”. They said “We will perhaps act” to justify their inaction.

I note that, since this government took office, it has cut 40% of the budget of the Department of the Environment. These are the very Liberal members today, in this House, who let the government act.

Right now, there is a dearth of inspectors and money to enforce the present environmental legislation. There is a lack of consistency. They cannot agree among themselves. What is this? The government wants to regain control over all things provincial and do things its way.

Had it known what it wanted, it would have made funds available to the Department of the Environment. But that is not what it is doing. In addition, it is leaving the provinces to do the dirty work.

Last week, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who is now in the House, had the misfortune to mention the pulp and paper agreements between the Government of Quebec and the federal government.

I will give figures that are quite different from those provided by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. In 1996, 65 pulp and paper plants in Quebec submitted their annual environmental compliance reports; daily and average SS release limits were respected by 25 plants 99% and 95% of the time; daily and average B0D5 release limits were respected 97% and 94% of the time; daily and average AOX release limits were respected 96% and 93% of the time.

I could provide other figures. It is true that agreements are important, that the federal government should allow the provinces to exercise authority within their own jurisdictions.

Giving out inaccurate information proves that it is not the Bloc Quebecois that is hurting the government's image but the government itself, by failing to take action. If it were to actually do something, we would be working together—as we did in committee during the clause by clause analysis—towards fair and equitable legislation that would be a model for the world.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not intend to speak to this group of amendments, but in response to the comments by my colleague from Jonquière, for whom I have a great deal of respect for his work in committee, I would like to point out that the pulp and paper statistics I quoted the other day for Quebec came from the report by the environment commissioner himself, which was tabled last week here in parliament.

These figures speak volumes. They show that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, if memory serves, there were deficient or problematical mills in 1995, 15 mills in 1996 and, I think, 27 in 1997. The figures may vary from year to year. Problematical mills for these three years add up to a total of 45. There was only one prosecution over those three years, according to the commissioner.

He also reported that Quebec had said that corrective action would be taken. In fact, this is a report to the federal government, stating something along the following “You sign agreements, make certain arrangements, but if the others who have signed these agreements—in this case, the province of Quebec—do not manage to get anything done under these agreements, what do you do?”

The commissioner pointed out that the federal government had not been able to produce the remedial reports it was supposed to in connection with the problems found in these plants. His report makes this very clear.

I am not the one saying this, the commissioner is in his official report. If the Government of Quebec does not agree with the commissioner, let it settle things with him.

The commissioner also indicated that the Government of Quebec was not the only one involved, as I also pointed out in my speech. In the case of the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta, there had never been reports produced on the delegation of the Fisheries Act which, under section 36, as hon. members are aware, is administered by the Department of the Environment. There is a delegation of powers here as well, and the Alberta and Saskatchewan departments of the environment are not even required to table the reports to the federal government demanded by this section. The commissioner said that also.

This does not come from me. If the figures are incorrect, the governments of Quebec, Alberta or Saskatchewan just have to blame the environment commissioner.

Personally, I am willing to accept the figures and the statistics made public by the environment commissioner because he would not have made them public without making a thorough investigation. The figures are clear, and that is what is happening.

What I wanted to show is that many members of the Bloc Quebecois have been saying that everything is always wonderful in Quebec and that all the problems are at the federal level. I admit there are problems at the federal level. It is clear from our comments in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that we are not trying to hide the problems that exist at the federal level. That is what the commissioner did, which is what I wanted to point out. But, at the same time, we cannot say everything is fine at the provincial level and everything is bad at the federal level. We always hear the same tune.

The commissioner wanted to say very clearly, with regard to the delegation of powers, that we delegate to the provinces, which, in turn, delegate to everybody else. Budget cuts are being made on top of the ones made by Environment Canada, and the big losers are the environment and human health because, as I said, the fox is in charge of the chicken coop. That is what is happening with this hasty and excessive delegation of powers, and that is all I wanted to point out.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 27, the divisions on the proposed motions in Group No. 5 are deemed demanded and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 6.

Pursuant to order adopted on Thursday, May 27, 1999, the motions in Group No. 6 are deemed to have been moved and seconded.

This group contains Motions Nos. 36 to 38, 41, 70 and 73.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-32, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 26 the following:

““areas that are reasonably accessible to children” include homes, schools, day care centres, shopping malls, movie theatres, beaches and parks.”

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-32, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 26 the following:

““environmental pollutant” means a substance that endangers the health, safety or welfare of humans or animal life, degrades or alters, or forms part of a process of degradation or alteration of, an ecosystem to an extent that is detrimental to its use by humans, animals or plants.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-32, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 24 on page 26 with the following:

““hormone disrupting substance” means an exogenous substance that causes adverse health effects in an intact organism or its progeny, consequent to changes in endocrine function.”

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-32, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 28 the following:

“(5) The Ministers shall conduct research or studies relating to a safer environment for children and shall ( a ) identify environmental pollutants commonly used or found in areas that are reasonably accessible to children; ( b ) create a list that has been reviewed by a team of scientists of environmental pollutants identified under paragraph ( a ) to have known, probable, or suspected health risks to children; ( c ) create a scientifically reviewed list of safer-for-children substances and products recommended by the Ministers for use in areas that are reasonably accessible to children and that will minimize potential risks to children from exposure to environmental pollutants; ( d ) establish guidelines to help reduce and eliminate the exposure of children to environmental pollutants in areas reasonably accessible to children, including advice on how to establish an integrated environmental pollutant reduction program; ( e ) create a family right-to-know information kit that includes a summary of helpful information and guidance to families, including the list created under paragraph ( c ), the guidelines established under paragraph ( d ), information on the potential health effects of environmental pollutants, practical suggestions on how parents may reduce their children's exposure to environmental pollutants and other relevant information, as determined by the Ministers; ( f ) make all information gathered under this subsection available to governments and the public; and ( g ) review and update the lists created under paragraphs ( b ) and ( c ) at least every two years.”

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-32, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 41 with the following:

“the property or characteristic; and ( e ) respecting the guidelines, conditions and procedures relating to compliance to be followed, in relation to the property on characteristic of the substance, in areas that are reasonably accessible to children, to ensure a safer environment for children.”

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-32, in Clause 68, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 42 with the following:

“substance in the environment; and ( d ) correlate and evaluate any data collected or generated under paragraph ( a ) that would allow quantification and evaluation of child-specific and other vulnerable subpopulation-specific susceptibility to the exposure to and bioaccumulation of the substance present or released into the environment.”

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up once more in this Chamber to address the motions in Group No. 6. That group is made of Motions Nos. 36 to 38, 41, 70 and 73. They relate to hormone disrupting substances.

During the clause by clause study of the bill in committee, the Bloc Quebecois approved the redefinition of those substances. That is why we cannot support Motions Nos. 36, 37, 41, 70 and 73, that the hon. member for Churchill put forward in the name of his party.

If they were adopted, these motions would give the federal government additional powers in areas outside its jurisdiction through clauses 43 and 45 of the act. For example, all things concerning children are under provinces' jurisdiction. With those amendments the federal government could have a say about homes, schools, daycare facilities and the like. These areas are of no concern to the Minister of the Environment.

We are in a situation where several hon. members would like to reduce the powers of the provinces by giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction in certain areas. Again, this is the bad habit of centralization through national standards with the objective of getting one's hands on what belongs to others.

As for Motion No. 38, proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni, we cannot support it. Members of the Bloc do not accept the vision underlying this motion which narrows the definition of hormone disrupting substance by redefining it in very vague terms.

With that motion, the Reform Party is showing its true colours, in that it does not think that we need environmental protection legislation. Reformers think that we would be better off without such legislation. Everybody could do as he or she pleases and taxpayers would save money.

Throughout the committee hearings, every time we were dealing with the crucial amendments needed to set the course straight and tell the government: “You have cut the environment budget enough. You no longer have enough inspectors to enforce the current legislation”. Every time we did something to get things moving, to provide a more specific framework, Reform members were against it. They wanted to ensure freedom of choice. But enough is enough.

As I have shown by putting forward 41 amendments in Group No. 2, we firmly believe that the provinces, including Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude significant agreements with national and international partners and lastly have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.

Before the Kyoto summit, it was impossible to find out what was the federal government's vision, its action plan. In 1997, all of the provincial ministers of the Environment attended a meeting.

They submitted a common proposal to the federal government. It expressed their vision and they wanted the federal government to bring it to Kyoto.

They had accomplished quite a feat. All provincial environment ministers had finally sat at the same table and reached an agreement. This was too much for the federal government; finally, there was a coalition. The ten provinces, gathered around the same table, were telling the federal government “That is it”. But the federal government, and Liberal members in particular, are quite touchy.

What did they do? When they arrived in Kyoto, they took a completely opposite position. At last, the Canadian government could have had some influence on the international scene. It could have taken a strong position, with the support of the ten provinces. But it preferred to continue the tradition: what comes from the outside is not acceptable to this government.

I am not trying to impute motives here but the more I study the environment issue, the more I see this government acting just like the Reform Party. The member for Palliser mentioned the following in his speech last week “The Liberal Party spends the other 23 hours and 15 minutes—after the 45 minutes each day at question period when Liberal cabinet ministers, one after another, stand to condemn the Reform Party for all things that are wrong with this country—doing the business of the Reform Party in producing very bad legislation for this country”.

I believe we could have introduced a truly progressive act. We were prepared to do so. We wanted to finally have an act dealing with urgent problems. Unfortunately, the centralizing approach of this government, based on its policy of double social security net for environmental protection, has been disappointing.

This is why we will be voting against Group No. 6 amendments.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to make an intervention to express an interest and a positive feeling in relation to Motions Nos. 41 and 70 proposed by the hon. member for Churchill River.

Motion No. 41 is a very forward-looking legislative thought because the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Health would be required to take certain actions, such as conducting research or developing guidelines in relation to environmental pollutants that might be harmful to children.

Motion No. 70 would broaden powers by allowing the development of regulations respecting substances to ensure a safer environment for children.

In both cases, the member for Churchill River, quite rightly, recognizes the fact, established in the case of lead for instance, that children are much closer to pollutants than adults when there are pollutants in the air and therefore ought to be given particular protection considering their sensitivity, their delicate nature and that they are in a development stage.

The member for Churchill River ought to be congratulated for taking the initiative that he has taken.

I would like to express the hope that the government will listen and take into account these two particular propositions by the member for Churchill River, who has certainly expressed a concern that is very timely and very well integrated with the overall thrust of a government that seems to put particular emphasis on the well-being of children.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the amendments in Group No. 6. A few of the amendments were put forward by our Reform colleagues as well as by the member for Churchill River. I would like to highlight these at this time.

In Motion No. 38 Reform is attempting to alter the definition of endocrine disrupters included in the information gathering section of the bill to the Weybridge definition.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For clarification are we still on Group No. 5?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

No, we are now discussing Group No. 6.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, during the committee hearings we often saw that the parliamentary secretary was a step behind in some of the amendments throughout the clause by clause process. This actually replicates what we saw on an ongoing basis.

This replies to the issue with respect to the Reform and the government side on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and endocrine disrupters. There has been a bit of debate about what is the accepted definition for these very harmful substances. I would like to point out that had it not been for the due diligence of members like the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for York North, the member for Davenport, the NDP, the Bloc and the Progressive Conservatives, I doubt that there would have been the political pressure for any amendments with respect to endocrine disrupters in this bill.

This is an emerging science. There is no truly accepted international definition. A definition was exposed at the Weybridge conference a number of years ago and which a number of scientists in the international community actually saw. There is a definition in the United States Environmental Protection Act.

Essentially the definition we see here, which was moved by the NDP and was voted on and approved by the Bloc, the Progressive Conservatives and some government members, is a melange of the U.S. EPA and the Weybridge definitions. To use the words of the environment officials, it is indeed a very workable definition.

The Reform Party would have us believe that the Weybridge definition is internationally accepted. It is not. That definition came out of an OECD meeting held in Weybridge, U.K. A melange of the U.S. EPA and the Weybridge definitions is what is in the information gathering section of CEPA. The environment officials consider it to be very workable.

Canada is already a world leader in endocrine disrupters research. The definition we chose to work with should reflect our strength and knowledge of these substances. The NDP motions will add the need for the government to conduct research relating to a safer environment for children by identifying pollutants commonly found in areas accessible to children and identifying the risks in order to advise the public of potential danger. This is a good initiative for the well-being of children.

Children grow at a faster rate than adults do. The ongoing development of their organs makes them especially vulnerable to toxins in our environment. The nervous system in particular can be greatly affected by exposure to some toxins. We need to do more to ensure that they are protected from dangerous contaminants where they live, play and grow.

The metabolic pathways of newborns are not as sophisticated as those found in adults. This means their ability to fight off exposure to toxins in the environment is less than that of adults. They experience greater exposure to toxins than adults do because they consume more water, fruit and vegetables and when resting breathe more air than average adults do. Their tendency to place their dirty hands in their mouths and play on the ground also provides them with a greater risk of exposure to environmental toxins.

Parents, doctors and governments need to be educated on the risks children are being exposed to on a daily basis. This is why we support the motion by my NDP friend and colleague from Churchill River. It is a valuable augmentation to the legislation. I encourage all members of this House to support that amendment.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that we are dealing with Bill C-32 at this time. This is the beginning of environment week in Canada. The environment should be of utmost priority.

The group of amendments before us will strengthen the environmental protection of this country, its citizens and its whole biodiversity. The motions in Group No. 6 deal specifically with children. We have had great debate over this past year on Bill C-32.

The Canadian population has seen our environment experience major drastic changes and effects from pollution, toxic substances, pesticides and biotechnology. The growth of the industrial revolution and its impact on our environment, our livelihood and our health is coming to a point where we have to be very cautious of what we do in the future. If we are not cautious the children will be responsible for cleaning up the mess that we leave. We are cleaning up what the previous generation left us and we would hate to be responsible for leaving a mess for our children to clean up.

The motions in Group No. 6 challenge the federal ministers of health and the environment. As my hon. colleagues from the Bloc have highlighted, this may contradict their belief that federal and provincial responsibilities are the main question in their decision. I would beg all members of the House to look at the vulnerability of our children first. Let us put aside our federal and provincial differences. Let us put aside our partisan differences in the House and look at the vulnerability of our children as a whole. Let us look at our own homes, our children and grandchildren. Let us look at the role we hope to see ourselves play as grandparents in the future.

If we do not specify the uniqueness of our children and their vulnerability, we will have missed our responsibility as parliamentarians and as parents. Even before children are born and their growth pattern starts, they are immediately exposed by their mother's responsibility of providing food and drink. As our children are growing and developing we sometimes do not detect the effects of the many toxins and substances they are exposed to. We assume it is their natural growing and development curve.

If adults were exposed to the same toxins and are poisoned or affected neurologically in terms of behaviour or physically in terms of their organs, they would see a sudden change in that pattern. They would look to their doctors for an analysis because they would know that something was drastically wrong. They would go to clinics and ask for help and seek advice from nurses.

Children cannot speak for themselves. We cannot find out what substances have been causing major changes in neurological and behaviour disorders, the function of their organs and their growing patterns. Children do not know if something is wrong. We naturally accept their growth and development to be the same as other children.

As the hon. member for Fundy Royal mentioned, pound for pound children consume more water, food and air than adults do so we have to take special care. The amendments we have put forward specifically look at the areas children inhabit, such as playgrounds and school yards. They may be adjacent to major industries and manufacturing companies. If the provincial and federal health and environment ministers send their information gathering officers out and they only take samples in general throughout the whole community they may overlook specific needs.

They may not look at swimming pools or waterslides. With temperatures like today's their use will rise during the summer. Children do not think about what kind of substances they are exposed to in swimming pools or at the many beaches, lakes and cottages where people seek a haven with a clean environment and clean air. Some waterways are affected by certain industries and if they go undetected there are drastic impacts.

We are looking at specific sites and recommending that due respect be given to the vulnerability of children. We must not overlook it. We must take our responsibility very seriously that we do not put them at risk.

Another contentious issue I bring forward is the leadership of our country on the environment. A recent report from the commissioner of the environment said that the government has done well in providing guidance and being in the lead of making press releases of initiatives but when it comes to action there is a major gap. Press releases and press conferences have highlighted what is going to happen and what hopefully will happen but when it comes to getting the budgets, the resources and the personnel to make it happen, that is where the major weakness is in the Liberal government's leadership.

That is why I call for time to reflect at this time. Let us make sure that the provisions of the act are strengthened. Let us make sure the protection of our children and children's specific issues are highlighted in the bill.

This past week we received a highlight of a major conference in New York. It was specifically on the impact of the environment on children and their specific health issues. The Government of Canada must take leadership on these issues and call on the provincial and municipal governments, the health leadership of this country to create a dialogue about what specific issues have to be discussed.

Bill C-32 is on its way if the amendments do not diminish any of the strong clauses. Common sense prevailed through the committee process and it strengthened the bill. If this bill survives that whole process, this bill should be enacted and brought forward. It would give leadership to the people, the parents, the teachers, the health care workers, the caregivers and provide them with an opportunity to contribute. A lot of this could be driven on the needs of the children. That is what the provisions in Group No. 6 highlight.

We did not have an opportunity to speak on Group No. 5. We recognize that a lot of the amendments were concordance of the French and English translations, but there were substantive changes. We draw attention to a concern we have on the issue of interpretation and the law for loopholes because this will be a legal document.

Be careful on some of the amendments. They may look like housekeeping amendments but the government has proven to be untrustworthy in many cases through its record on environment. We will try to make it accountable right to the bitter end to make sure that the health and safety of Canadians, and specifically our children, are covered under Bill C-32.

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

Madam Speaker, there are six amendments in Group No. 6. Five of them are from the NDP and one is put forward by Reform.

Our amendment, Motion No. 38, deals with the definition of endocrine disrupters in clause 43. When we talk of endocrine disrupters many Canadians today are still uncertain as to what they are. This is for a very good reason. Hormone disrupters is a relatively new concept that has only come to light in recent years. It is still a matter of intense study and research. Hormone disrupting substances were first made popular by Theo Colborn in his book, Our Stolen Future , published around three years ago.

Hormones are produced and released into the blood stream by a variety of glands. Hormones are essential for regulating many of our biological processes. They guide the development of sexual characteristics, the immune and nervous systems, the brain, and behavioural characteristics.

Our hormones and our glands together make up our endocrine system. That is what we have been talking about: the endocrine system, our hormones and our glands. Hormone disrupters allegedly disrupt the endocrine system and may cause birth defects, cancer, genetic damage or even death. This is now a matter of international study and research.

As I stated when addressing the Group No. 4 amendments, when Bill C-32 was originally tabled in the House it contained a definition of hormone disrupters which was consistent with the internationally accepted definition. This working definition of endocrine disrupters was adopted by the OECD in the United Kingdom in December 1996.

Unfortunately some members of the standing committee voted to come up with a new definition of hormone disrupters. This new definition puts Canada at a disadvantage as we will be out of step with the rest of the world. Canada should move forward in unison with the rest of the world to tackle key emerging endocrine issues. However, as our definition will be inconsistent we will not benefit as well from research and studies conducted elsewhere. Similarly our results and experience will not benefit others in the international community. Canada will benefit little, if at all, by going on its own in this very serious issue.

In conclusion, there is one significant amendment in this group which must be considered, and that is to ensure that Canada's definition of endocrine disrupting substances is consistent with that of the rest of the world.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, in 1995, when it reviewed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development wrote “The government cannot protect the environment on its own, and it should not be expected to do so. Everybody has an interest in a healthy, clean and safe environment, and has a role to play in the protection of our environment”.

Bill C-32 reflects the philosophy that protecting the environment is everybody's responsibility. It puts the emphasis on partnership with other governments in Canada and abroad in other to address common issues.

But governments cannot act alone, and the duties of the federal government as set out in Bill C-32 provide that it should encourage the participation of the people of Canada in the making of decisions that affect the environment, and facilitate the protection of the environment by the people of Canada.

Let me describe briefly how Bill C-32 translates these general duties in specific opportunities for public participation.

We want Canadians to know how their environment is faring.

Under Bill C-32, the minister may continue to publish reports on the state of the environment and is legally bound to publish the national inventory of releases of pollutants. This is how Canadians will know exactly what quantities of pollutants have been released in their own community.

However, the information is of no use if people cannot use it and have ready access to it. This provision requires the establishment of an environmental registry to facilitate access to these documents and to all other documents relating to the present bill, including notices of the periods set for the public to gather observations and to obtain a permit; intergovernmental agreements; objectives, directives and codes of practice; and, finally, the regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government also intends to add the Registry to the Internet to make it even more accessible.

Access to information on the environment does not simply just encourage public dialogue on environmental issues, it is vital as well to ensure enlightened participation in decision-making.

This bill also makes participation in decision-making easier by ensuring individuals always have the right to present a notice of opposition to a proposed regulation and by increasing avenues of intervention to include the right to make observations on the scientific merit of evaluations done to determine whether a substance is toxic and to make observations on proposed equivalence agreements and on agreements regarding the creation of legislation between the federal government and other governments in Canada.

The public must know the government takes their observations into account. This then is why Bill C-32 sets out clearly the minister's obligation to report on measures taken in response to such observations.

Bill C-32 also recognises that there are circumstances in which the public should be able to demand direct actions. It gives individuals the right to call for an investigation when, in their opinion, the CEPA has been infringed. This legislation will require the minister to be more accountable, because he will be obliged to periodically report the progress of the study.

Measures have also been taken in this bill to ensure that individuals reporting violations of the CEPA may do so without appear of reprisal. These individuals may ask that their identity be protected, and anyone revealing the identity of a whistleblower is committing an offence. This bill as well provides protection to people providing information at the work place: anyone found harassing, disciplining or dismissing an employee who has reported a violation of the CEPA is committing an offence.

Bill C-32 contains a new right allowing an individual who did not personally suffer a prejudice to bring an action against someone who is alleged to have violated the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The provisions granting this new right were drafted with great care to avoid frivolous actions. For example, the claimant can only bring an action after having asked the minister to launch an investigation on the alleged offence, and only if the measures contemplated by the minister following the investigation to ensure compliance with CEPA or its regulations are unreasonable and the offence caused material injury to the environment.

To avoid having such actions being brought by “bounty hunters” trying to get rich, Bill C-32 explicitly limits the payment of damages. These provisions thus have the effect of preventing someone from bringing an action for the purpose of making money. However, the claimant may recover costs incurred for any investigation into the case and for the action.

Bill C-32 is a sincere effort to meet the expectations of the public, which wants to play a greater role in the protection of its environment. It is groundbreaking legislation on the rights of citizens, and we expect this House to give it the consideration that it deserves and to pass it as quickly as possible.

[The Speaker]

We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Crohn's And Colitis Foundation Of Canada

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada is a voluntary, not for profit medical research foundation dedicated to finding the cure for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease. There is no known cause or cure and there are an estimated 100,000 men and women in Canada suffering from IBD. People are most frequently diagnosed between the ages of 15 to 25.

The CCFC funds educational programs for health professionals, IBD patients and their families. To date the CCFC has invested more than $21 million in major research projects.

This year marked the 11th time 260 M & M meat shops fired up their barbecues in their various communities in Canada for the annual fundraiser. This event nationwide raised $702,000 this year, which now totals an astounding $4 million. I congratulate the M & M meat shops across Canada for doing all that they do in this area.

Prostate Cancer

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday Mr. Jim Pattison, perhaps B.C.'s most well known and respected entrepreneur, pledged $20 million to help fund the Vancouver prostate cancer research team headed by Dr. Larry Goldenberg. The team also includes Dr. Martin Gleave who helped me with the Prostate Cancer Awareness Day for MPs which was held on the Hill in March 1998.

Thanks to the dedication of professionals like Dr. Goldenberg and the generosity of Jim Pattison, work on finding a cure for prostate cancer can proceed in Canada at a level that was previously only dreamed about.

The fact remains, though, that Mr. Pattison pledged more funding for prostate cancer research in one afternoon than the health minister has promised over five years, even though prostate cancer kills as many men as breast cancer kills women.

In the light of last Wednesday's announcement, I urge the minister to revisit his medical research priorities list and to significantly increase funding for prostate cancer research.

Canadian Volunteer Advisers To Business

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I acknowledge the outstanding efforts of one of my constituents, Mr. Tom Gibson.

Accompanied by his wife Betty, he went on assignment to Lithuania with the Canadian Volunteer Advisers to Business. He spent six weeks in Vilnius, advising the municipality of the establishment of a tourism advisory board and preparing a business plan for the tourism department.

He drafted a constitution for the board modelled on Ontario bylaws and proposed the list of initial members. He developed the composition, duties and responsibilities of the board and contact associations, indirect suppliers and allied organizations.

Mr. Gibson expects the result of his work will be improved working relations between the municipality and the tourism industry. I ask the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Gibson for his fine work as a volunteer for the Canadian Volunteers Advisers to Business in this, its 31st year of service.

The Environment

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to celebrate Canadian Environment Week. The theme this year is community action on clean air and climate change. June 2 marks the first Clean Air Canada Day. Each year the Wednesday of environment week, starting this year, will celebrate Clean Air Day Canada.

I encourage all Canadians to pay particular attention to two of the many environmental priorities of the government: improving the quality of air Canadians breathe and addressing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. All of us have the chance on Wednesday to join environmental, health and transportation groups in promoting the activities these individuals engage in all year, and especially during May and June.

The Canadian commuter challenge involves Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, London, and the national capital region. These cities are in competition to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases by finding healthier ways to commute. Other cities will have other activities.

In celebration of environment week, please join me in encouraging all Canadians to participate in clean air activities. Walk to work on Wednesday, ride the—