Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to final reading 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.
The bill has come a long way from its first reading back on March 28, 1998 and I believe it faces a long road ahead in the Senate. The environment and sustainable development committee spent eight months alone hearing witnesses and reviewing the proposed amendments in an attempt to improve the bill. However, there is still a lot that can be done to make pollution prevention the cornerstone objective in the act.
Eleven years ago in 1988, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was first introduced by the Progressive Conservative government. It was a significant part of our environmental record and part of over a decade of environmental progress from 1984 to 1993.
While the government promised “A Liberal government will lead in protecting the environment” in the red book, the truth of the matter is it has never had a plan to turn that promise into action. This was empty election rhetoric coming from a party that no longer has any credibility on this file.
It has taken six long years to get this significant piece of environmental legislation to third reading. It had to get there by invoking the dreaded debate killing, time allocation hammer, something the government has done 53 times since it has taken office in 1993.
One wonders what the Liberals are afraid to hear. I have news for them. There was no need to kill the debate. The secret is already out. Canadians already know the government does not intend to put consideration of the environment and human health first. There is no need to pretend any more or to make any other promises. The truth of the matter is that Canadians do not expect leadership on the environment from the Liberal government.
Last year's report tabled by the Commissioner of the Environment stated:
Vision and leadership are the two essential ingredients for tackling environmental challenges that face the government...While Canada has demonstrated vision, it is failing in implementing it...The government is not keeping the promises it makes both Canadians and the world.
The government's lack of commitment to the environment is painfully obvious to Canadians. Part of the problem is reflected in the cuts to the environment ministry budget and human resources. It has gone from being the eighth largest department when the Progressive Conservative Party was in government to the smallest now of all 21 departments.
In contrast, our decade of governing is marked by significant progress on the environmental agenda. We established a strong national voice for the environment and showed world leadership on sustainable development.
Let me take a moment to remind Canadians what environmental progress really sounds like. It was the government of the Progressive Conservative Party, the party of Tom MacMillan, Lucien Bouchard and Jean Charest, three consecutive environment ministers, which actually played a significant role with respect to the environment.
The Progressive Conservative's initiatives included developing international leadership known as the Montreal protocol. This led to the international community signing an accord to eliminate or phase out ozone depleting gases. Canada was a principle player in this 1987 accord.
The Conservatives also eliminated lead in gasoline. They signed an air quality accord with the Americans to control international air pollution. Perhaps the achievement I am most proud of is the signing of an acid rain protocol with the Americans to ensure that factories located mainly in the United States do not contaminate the rivers, lakes and ponds located primarily in eastern Canada. We did that by doing one initiative first: we cleaned up our own act at home.
The Conservatives also set up a UV advisory program. They eliminated the excise tax on methanol and ethanol in blended fuels. They signed a revised Great Lakes water quality agreement and introduced the first CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As the member for Davenport pointed out in committee, it was a pioneering bill in 1988. It is the principle bill for control in the use of toxins in the environment.
During the time we were in government the Prime Minister was once quoted saying:
At an unprecedented rate, we are stripping the earth of its forests, washing away its soil, creating vast deserts, eradicating untold species of plants and animals, despoiling our oceans and poisoning our skies.
Elizabeth May, director of the Sierra Club of Canada, wrote an article on June 22 of last year saying:
Five years after he (Brian Mulroney) resigned as Prime Minister, I think of the amazing pace in environmental progress made by his government. Those days are long gone.
The Sierra Club of Canada stated in its Rio report card last year the following about the Liberals:
—with this sixth set of marks for performance by the federal government in meeting its Rio targets, it is clear that environmental issues have never been at such a low point on the political agenda.
I will now draw on the history of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The original CEPA was a pioneering bill enacted to control the adverse effects of toxins in the environment; a concern first highlighted in Rachel Carson's thought provoking novel A Silent Spring . CEPA also included the need to review the bill and its effectiveness after five years. This progress began in 1994.
The first stage was an extensive review by the environment and sustainable development committee. Its findings, detailed in a document entitled “It's about our Health”, reported 141 recommendations for the government to consider in drafting the revised bill.
The government responded in December 1996 with Bill C-74, a piece of legislation that was so flawed and raised so much controversy that the government elected to let it die on the Order Paper at the dissolution of parliament in 1997. Some individuals are concerned that this may actually be the fate of this particular bill should the House prorogue this fall.
The government decided to try again by tabling Bill C-32 in April 1998, 10 years after the passage of the original act. It is simply amazing that it has taken the government 11 years to get here and it still does not have the full support of the House for the bill. I would like to point out that it does not even have the full support of its own caucus.
When the bill was sent to committee, it had a possible record number of amendments put forward for discussion and debate. Some 400-plus proposed amendments were examined over a period of eight months.