Debates of June 1st, 1999

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Don't forget me.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, why did she override those three valuable members of the committee?

The aboriginal group is strictly an advisory group. The minister can still chose to ignore its advice. Also the bill completely ignores the Metis people.

The federal and provincial governments spent $62 million to help the affected people out of Frederick Street, but there is no long term commitment and no resources to clean up the tar ponds and all that area, once and for all. None whatsoever.

The bill out of the committee has been weakened and the parliamentary secretary knows it. She cannot deny that because it is a fact.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to say a few words about Bill C-32, the legislation to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or CEPA as it is commonly known.

I will focus my remarks on the critical issue of enforcement of the law. Effective enforcement of our environmental laws is something that Canadians have a right to expect. It has been a matter of interest to many members of the House and of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Bill C-32 represents a significant step forward because of the new enforcement tools it will provide. This will translate into improved enforcement and better protection of our environment and our health. CEPA is the cornerstone of federal environmental protection legislation. It allows the government to set tough but fair standards for the benefit of all Canadians to protect our environment and our health.

Through its regulations CEPA sets rules that must be obeyed. The enforcement provisions of Bill C-32 will provide the powers to ensure these rules are indeed obeyed. It provides authority to conduct inspections that are the backbone of our enforcement efforts.

Inspections serve several functions. First, they help to create an enforcement presence, evidence of the government's commitment to ensuring compliance by regulatees. Second, they can identify specific environmental problems. Third, they serve to identify non-compliance for further investigation.

Bill C-32 expands investigative powers in CEPA to make sure that our enforcement officers can enter and inspect any place where there might logically be substances or activities regulated under CEPA. Enforcement officers will now be able to seek inspection warrants from the courts when they are refused entry at a commercial site or when they arrive and find that the premises are locked or abandoned.

Another significant improvement in the bill is the changes that will provide peace officer status to CEPA enforcement officers. These new powers will greatly improve their ability to detect environmental crimes. It means, among other things, that CEPA enforcement officers will be able to seek warrants to conduct video surveillance or intercept private communications.

Other peace officer powers, such as the authority to serve court summonses, issue notices to appear in court and seek search warrants by telephone, will allow enforcement officers to do their job more quickly and efficiently, especially when they are ensuring compliance in remote areas.

Bill C-32 not only introduces innovations during the inspection and investigation phase. It also introduces changes for dealing with situations where CEPA has been violated. Once there has been a violation of an environmental protection law, our goal is to return the violator to compliance as quickly as possible, without further recurrence of the violation.

Traditionally we have relied on criminal courts to order violators into compliance once they have been convicted of an offence. Current thinking has led governments in Canada and elsewhere to supplement this process with other statutory tools designed to ensure compliance without burdening the courts with lengthy trials.

Two of the most important additions to CEPA in this area are environmental protection compliance orders and environmental protection alternative measures. Environmental protection compliance orders work like injunctions. They allow an enforcement officer to order a person to stop violating the law or to follow the requirements of the law where the enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a violation.

In keeping with the principles of justice, there are limitations to the use of this power by an inspector. The steps laid out in the order must be reasonable. They must be consistent with protection of the environment and public safety.

The maximum period that a compliance order can be in effect is 180 days. Nevertheless, environmental protection compliance orders are very powerful tools. To ensure that they are used fairly, a person who is the subject of an order can appeal the order by asking for a review of that order by an independent review officer.

The other major new type of enforcement tool is the environmental protection alternative measures, or EPAMs. Alternative measures are not new in Canadian law. They already are present in the Criminal Code as well as the Young Offenders Act.

Environmental protection alternative measures are essentially negotiated settlements to criminal charges. They are negotiated between the accused and the Attorney General of Canada. Bill C-32 sets out strict conditions surrounding the negotiation of such alternative measures including that the measures can only be negotiated after charges are laid in the court. The accused therefore knows that the government has thoroughly investigated the violation and has evidence to support these charges.

Negotiation of EPAMs is voluntary, both for the attorney general and the accused. The attorney general can choose not to offer negotiated EPAMs after taking into account the seriousness of the violation, damage to the environment and efforts made to correct the damage, the compliance history of the accused with CEPA and so on.

As well the accused must freely consent to negotiate an EPAM after being advised of their right to be represented by legal counsel. They must also accept the responsibility for their offence.

EPAMs are not backroom deals. They are negotiated after the charges are made public and the agreements themselves are filed in the court and they too are public documents. If the accused does not live up to the terms of the EPAM, the original charges can be reactivated. On the other hand, if the terms of the EPAM are fulfilled and the accused is again in compliance with the law, the charges can be suspended or withdrawn entirely. There is no recorded conviction; there is no criminal record and there is compliance.

Bill C-32 also provides new guidance for the courts when sentencing convicted offenders. The bill includes sentencing criteria that take into account such things as the cost to remedy the damage done to the environment. The maximum under CEPA continues to be a fine of $1 million a day or up to five years imprisonment. A court can also levy a fine equal to any profits earned as a result of the offence.

Bill C-32 takes an innovative and progressive approach toward enforcement. It greatly extends the powers of enforcement officers so they can ensure compliance with the law. Overall, Bill C-32 strengthens CEPA so that we will be able to better protect both the environment and the health of Canadians.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her fine speech. I have a number of questions for her.

Much of this comes from the work by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who excoriated the government in many ways on its failure to co-ordinate interdepartmental activities on the issue of sustainable environmental management and on the issue of developing a common policy and a hearing for those policies. The indictment was quite scathing. It went all the way from a lack of interdepartmental co-ordination to a lack of agreement. In fact the commissioner said that the single greatest impediment to fulfilling and living up to our agreements within our country is interdepartmental warring, a lack of co-ordination between departments on a horizontal level and within a department on a vertical level.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what does her government plan on doing to rectify this very important problem that we have within the government today?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the position the member refers to was actually established by the government. Many of the recommendations have been implemented in this bill. It is something that the government will continue to take seriously as it moves toward protecting the environment.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the vote last night, one of the amendments took away the statement of phasing out toxic substances in the preamble. The issue of phase-out was a major commitment made by the Liberals in the election campaign. In the fading red book the only thing that stood out was this environmental promise. Since this promise has been broken and only three of the Liberals stood up to oppose CEPA, maybe the member could comment on why the phase-out of the deadliest toxins in the world is not in effect in this country.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just underscore the hon. member's comment that it was in the preamble and not actually part of the bill. The bill says we will virtually eliminate all detectable levels of the specific toxins. That is virtual elimination. I would go back to my comments about the strict enforcement of the CEPA bill itself and the fact that it will lead to better environment control and better protection for Canadians.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Kitchener Centre for her interest in and commitment to this particular topic.

In her remarks the member talked about the issue of enforcement and implementation. There are roles here for the federal government obviously in the context of federal statutes and laws, but also for the provincial governments and the ministers of environment, particularly in Ontario. We have heard a lot of discussion and debate about the lack of commitment by the Ontario government in its cutbacks to the environment. With respect, we have had to do some cutting back in our own federal Department of the Environment.

I wonder if the member could comment on how well we are positioned in Ontario and in Canada to enforce the laws and regulations that we do promulgate.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and acknowledge that when we have a joint responsibility such as enforcement, this is something on which we will move with the provinces. We have to have their buy in to it as well.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has over 64,000 buildings, over 25,000 vehicles and disposes of over 90,000 tonnes of waste every single year. It was also stated that the government could save over $300 million over 30 years if it was able to adhere to the principles of sustainable environmental consumption that it agreed to but is not fulfilling.

How is the hon. member's government going to ensure that the federal government and the ministries themselves adhere to sound environmental principles and save $300 million and a lot of waste?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that CEPA actually is an attempt by the government to put its house in order as well as to bring into alignment the environmental issues it deals with.

I thank the hon. member for his concern. I wish he and his party would bring these concerns to question period and ask the minister herself these very important questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to talk about Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

Before I begin my formal comments I would like to thank the very many officials who have dedicated their energy, time and enthusiasm to this process. Without them we would not be here today voting on this bill. The minister and her staff and my own staff have made sure that this process has gone smoothly and that we have the best bill possible to vote on tonight.

During the last 11 months Bill C-32 has been debated by all sides in the House. After thoughtful consideration and often lively debate both in committee and in this chamber, Bill C-32 I believe gives Canadians environmental legislation that protects the health of Canadians today and for the future.

Some seven federal departments are touched by this bill: environment, health, agriculture and agri-food, fisheries and oceans, natural resources, industry, and intergovernmental affairs.

Canadians need and deserve legislation that deals with the challenges of today and prepares for the challenges of the future.

In the clause by clause process we spent some 93 hours, a Canadian record, examining the clauses of this bill. We considered some 560 different amendments, some of which overlapped and 157 of which were passed. The government proposed 90 amendments. It supported 60 amendments from members on all sides. As the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies said “Let us look at this bill and see how it is an improvement on the current legislation and something that all of us as Canadians can build upon”.

Bill C-32 is founded on the concept that preventing pollution is better both for the environment and for the economy than trying to clean up after the damage has been done.

CEPA, the current legislation that is enacted in Canada, came into place in 1988. Our thinking about the environment has evolved since then. Science and technology have evolved since then. Environmental law has advanced. Concepts like sustainable development and pollution prevention have become widely accepted. The environmental challenges are increasing rather than decreasing.

Bill C-32 is a significant and positive step in renewing the current legislation. It is on the leading edge of environmental protection legislation worldwide.

Contrary to their dire predictions and doomsday scenarios, at the end of the day this bill will ensure that industries in Canada will be more competitive and their employees will live in a healthier environment. After years of debate, a clear framework will exist once this bill is passed. Canadian businesses will meet the challenges. There are environmental businesses in my riding that depend on strong regulatory frameworks. That is what this bill will ensure.

The bill establishes a clear framework for managing toxic substances. It operationalizes pollution prevention, especially after amendments were requested by the environmental lobbyists who appeared before the committee. It ensures cleaner air and water. It deals with fuels, engine emissions, sources of international air and water pollution. It establishes a clear regime for environmental matters related to emergencies. It deals with emerging biotechnology issues guarding against the adverse effects of biotechnology. It deals with federal government lands and operations and aboriginal lands. It introduces strict enforcement regimes and new peace officer status and powers for stricter enforcement. It encourages public participation. There is a new environmental register that is fully accessible on the Internet. These are good things. It will lead to good change in our country.

One of the most important things is getting the worst toxic substances out of our environment. This bill establishes a more efficient process to identify, screen, assess and manage toxic substances. It virtually eliminates the most dangerous of those toxic substances. It puts in a fixed timeframe to put in place controls and obligates the Minister of the Environment and this government to do research on emerging issues like gender bending or hormone disrupting substances.

Might I remind all members that we have encouraged and left in place the amendments the committee brought forward, contrary to what members of the House are saying. That the amendments last night somehow brought the bill back to before the committee process I say is hogwash. This bill is a good bill. It was improved in the process and we have maintained that.

The new authority will improve control of pollutants and waste. It will monitor motor vehicles and other engine emissions to develop a new national emissions mark for engines meeting emission requirements. It will provide a national fuels mark to show that fuels meet environmental standards. It will provide better protection of the marine environment from land based sources of pollution and will increase the power to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclables. It will provide the power to control the import and export of non-hazardous waste and the authority to require reduction plans from exporters.

There is an increased role for aboriginal peoples. It improves the opportunities for public involvement. There is comprehensive whistleblower protection provisions that will encourage more Canadians to report CEPA violations.

I would now like to talk a bit about virtual elimination. Virtual elimination means reducing releases to the environment of a small number of the most dangerous toxic substances to levels where these releases cannot be measured. It relates to the most toxic substances. It is a leading edge process and it puts in place Canada's toxic substances management policy.

Extremely small releases of certain substances to the environment create problems that are extremely costly or impossible to correct. It is particularly true for substances that are toxic as defined under CEPA and are primarily the result of human activity. They are persistent, meaning that they take a long time if ever to break down and they bioaccumulate. They collect in living organisms and end up in the food chain.

Let us talk about DDT, an insecticide introduced in the 1940s into Canada. It was responsible for causing drastic reductions in many bird populations, especially those in the higher levels of the food chain. We banned DDT in 1970 in Canada and still it is being detected in the breast milk of people in our northern regions. It is still causing havoc for the birds and the bald eagles which like to nest in the Great Lakes area.

We cannot always accurately predict at precisely what level these very dangerous substances pose a significant risk, but we have put in place the precautionary principle. We base the decisions on science but we do not require full scientific certainly. That is what the legislation ensures.

The virtual elimination provisions of Bill C-32 are entirely consistent with the government's toxic substances management policy in 1995.

Let us talk about gender benders or hormone disrupting substances. Some chemicals disrupt the hormones in our bodies. Some of them have a long term effect and some of them have a short term effect. Beer would have a short term effect. Other things might have a longer term effect.

We are doing research. We are making sure our researchers are doing the best job. They are part of international panels. They are doing the research in my riding of Burlington. They will better understand this emerging threat and other threats that we do not even know about. They will evaluate toxics against this new emerging information. They will protect the health of Canadians and the environment.

Unlike the existing CEPA, Bill C-32 places strict deadlines on the government to act to protect the environment and human health. The bill is consistent with the government's commitment to sustainable development when making decisions. The new CEPA requires consideration of environment and health effects. Unlike the existing laws, CEPA provides several opportunities for consultation and to develop more effective measures to protect the environment.

When members stand in the House tonight, they can stand and vote for the bill with confidence because it gives the government new tools and powers. The bill is about pollution prevention. The bill has public input and as a final bill it protects human health. It focuses on pollution prevention and it introduces and ensures a strict toxic management regime.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very uplifting to hear from a member of the Liberal government. They love to spout fine rhetoric such as “This is groundbreaking legislation. This bill includes the most effective processes. It is the best environmental legislation in the world”.

Yesterday, when we voted at report stage, the most involved members of the Liberal caucus, who sit on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, including the chairman himself, the hon. member for Davenport, who was Minister of the Environment in the Turner cabinet, voted against the bill.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, a former Quebec environment minister under Robert Bourassa in the 1970s, voted against the bill. He also sits on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The hon. member for York North, in Ontario, who is an environmentalist and a member of the same committee, voted against the bill.

The parliamentary secretary does not have the courage to admit that this bill was killed by the Minister of Industry himself and the various ministers who gravitate around him.

Everything is a power struggle in that party. The bill, which was originally acceptable, has been watered down to the point where it does not even have 1% of true quality left.

This is why Bloc Quebecois members and many others will vote against it. The squandering of public money and duplication that will result from this legislation are the reasons why my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, recommended that we vote against Bill C-32.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting preamble and an interesting question. I think somewhere I was called unthoughtful but I am not sure. I will try to ignore that part.

Clearly this is yet again the Bloc's interpretation of federal and provincial responsibilities. The bill is not about duplication. The bill acknowledges that the federal and provincial governments have some responsibilities. In some cases they overlap. We are working to have a seamless across the country of laws which will create, ensure and improve the environment and the human health of Canadians. I urge the hon. member to support it.

The supreme court said that the protection of the environment was an international problem that required action by governments at all levels. The legitimate use of the criminal law in—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. There are over 23,000 substances in the country today. Many were found acceptable prior to the 1960s when our ability to analyse their effects on human health were less than they are today. What does the parliamentary secretary feel about that?

The departments have made commitments to engage in sustainable environmental actions but only 11% of those actions are being fulfilled. What will the government do to ensure that governments live up to the commitments they said they would live up to?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 places some strict timelines on the evaluation of the 23,000 substances in existence in Canada. It ensures they are evaluated against the potential health and environment risks.

With regard to general government policy, the member should know that the last two budgets included some $40 million for this evaluation. We recently announced a project the other day. I am glad the member will be heralding that in news releases in his riding. It ensures the government is doing research on some of these very important substances. Health Canada, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are involved because we all know this environment is the only environment we have. We must protect the environment and the human health of Canadians.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, would like the parliamentary secretary acknowledge that the bill requires additional responsibilities of the minister and of the environment department? Are there additional resources for enforcement?

An additional listing of money was included in the last budget, but the standing committee was asking for enforcement. The standing committee has been tossed around by the—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the many good things that could be said about the government is that when a need has been identified we have made the resources available.

The committee recommended enhanced powers. They are in the bill, so I urge him to stand tonight and vote for stricter enforcement, for giving peace officer status to enforcement officers to make sure they can continue to protect the environment for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, fisheries; the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Correctional Service Canada; the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, the environment; the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, trade; the hon. member for Churchill River, Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-32. After what I have heard today I must say the government is falling far short of the commitments it has made. I bring to the attention of the House numerous studies on the abysmal activities of the government on the environment.

Unfortunately I only have 10 minutes so I will get to the heart of the matter. The Department of the Environment has been an utter failure in the enforcement, monitoring and control of the environmental policies it has enacted. I will divide the environment into two sections: domestic and international.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development put forth a very concise and specific report with specific solutions on how to revamp and improve the environment within our country and our activities abroad. After all, as we know, the environment is transboundary. It affects not only ourselves but other countries in the world.

In the first part, managing toxic substances, over 23,000 substances have been approved. Many of them were approved before 1960, which means we really do not know the effects of these substances on human health. We need to re-examine that.

One of the greatest obstacles toward a sustainable environmental program is the lack of co-ordination between departments and within departments. Turf wars, lack of co-ordination, lack of common vision, lack of agreement and lack of a dispute resolution mechanism on agreements have ensured that the agreements reached are unenforceable, are not being listened to, and are simply in many cases not worth the paper they are written on.

That is an issue of public service, public management and the failure of management in many of the ministries today. There is the lack of monitoring and the unfulfilled commitments. Commitments are made but not adhered to.

How can we have a sustainable environmental policy when the government's own departments are simply not listening to what they have been told to adhere to? Furthermore, no one is monitoring them and no one is saying that if two departments are not agreeing on something an independent dispute mechanism will be put in place to ensure that they do. If that were to happen it would go a long way to fulfilling the commitments we have made on the environment.

There is no common vision and there is a lack of consensus among departments. The commissioner said that the single greatest impediment to a sustainable environmental policy was the lack of departmental co-ordination which exists today.

On the issue of federal-provincial agreements there is no ongoing analysis of whether the federal and provincial governments are actually fulfilling the commitments they have made. No one is watching them. There are no dispute resolution mechanisms among provinces or between the federal government and the provinces.

Commitments are made and no concrete action is taken. Only 11% of the commitments made by departments have been fulfilled. Some 89% have not been fulfilled. There is a lack of co-ordination among departments and inadequate review is endemic.

We need to turn talk into action. The federal government has 64,000 buildings, 25,000 vehicles, and disposes of 95,000 tonnes of waste every year. The commissioner said that if the government were to adhere to the principles that have been put forth it would save taxpayers some $300 million over the next 30 years, not to mention making our streets, our air and our land a lot safer for everyone.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We can look at what is happening in other countries. In the Netherlands and Denmark the agricultural sector has done an outstanding job of putting together concise environmental plans. The World Bank is starting to do it. South Africa has done an outstanding job with respect to its endangered species legislation and in terms of garnering, improving and expanding habitat.

With the consent of the House I will be sharing my time with the member for Elk Island.

Internationally we have to look at what will happen in the future. There is an increasing population growth rate. Currently our world population is 6 billion people. In the middle of the next century the world population will hit 11 billion. How will we make sure that we have an environment that is liveable with a population of 11 billion? People will strive for an improved standard of living.

The largest democracy in the world, India, has an incredibly expanding middle class that will number over 300 million people in the next century. Approximately 300 million people, 10 times the population of Canada, will be demanding the same standard of living as we have. That will put an extraordinary demand upon not only renewable, but also non-renewable resources. If we do not institute sustainable environmental policies and adhere to those policies we will have a degraded environment in which it will simply not be worth living.

Some, such as Tad Homer Dixon from the University of Toronto Institute of Conflict Studies, have claimed that the diminishing of non-renewable resources will result in conflict. We can see as an example the water situation in the Middle East and how this is an issue on which wars may be fought. It is something that we need to look at and, indeed, the countries in the area need to look at very carefully.

On the issue of endangered species the government's behaviour is abysmal. This issue affects not only the federal government, but also the provinces. Because of the balkanization of our country, how things have been divided between the federal government and the provinces, there is an enormous amount of overlap between those two levels of government, as well as the municipalities, and endangered species are not being protected.

The federal government's great tome to endangered species is to protect less than 5% of the land in this country. That is nothing. Species rely upon land to survive. The degradation of land, damage to the environment and the shrinkage of their habitat are the greatest threats to these species.

I know there are members across the way who feel very passionately about this. The federal government clearly needs to work with the provinces in developing a strategy that will involve a much larger area of land over which the federal government or the provinces, one or the other, will have distinct control so that laws can be applied, people will adhere to them and the laws will be enforced.

There are two topics I would like to broach. One is co-ordination between government and the private sector. Not enough has been done about that. Again I bring up the subject of South Africa. The people of the province of KwaZulu/Natal have done an outstanding job of marrying the needs of the private sector and the public sector. Co-operation between the private and the public sectors has led to a huge increase in habitat and has greatly improved the safety of the flora and fauna. It is the last repository for large mammals in that area of the world. If it was not for what has been done in that province, many of these mammals would have been extinct a long time ago, as well as much of the flora.

I ask the government to look at the innovative ways in which South Africa has engaged in public-private partnerships and conservancies and how the parks and habitat have been used to benefit the people in the surrounding area. This has done a great deal for the sustainable environment program, which has benefited people as well as the flora and fauna and the environment.

The government needs to turn talk into action. It needs to implement the strategies. It needs to monitor the strategies. It needs to establish clear targets. It needs to develop interdepartmental co-ordination, not the hodge-podge situation we have now, with the infighting which is making the environmental policy of the government a pox on its house.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech and particularly to the part where he talked about a project in South Africa, which I think is an excellent example of public and private partnership.

Yesterday evening I had a chance to attend the state dinner hosted by the Prime Minister for the President of Colombia. I happened to be sitting beside a gentlemen and his wife who live in Bogota and own a small coffee plantation. These individuals are from a well established family. The gentleman was telling me that the U.S. based Smithsonian Institution is prepared to certify plantations such as his because he is willing to invest money in his plantation to assist with the migratory bird problem, a problem resulting unfortunately from deforestation in the tropical areas of South America.

In line with the member's comments, I thought it was an excellent example of economy and ecology working together to provide a better situation, not only for our animal life but for human beings as well.

The certification of his plantation by the Smithsonian Institution will allow this individual to sell coffee at a higher price because it will be certified by the institution. Resources will then be available for this man to invest in his plantation to improve the trees and the husbandry of the plants for the benefit of the migratory birds who need that type of forest cover.

I am wondering if the member could comment further on that type of partnership. Does the member believe that Bill C-32 will not allow that kind of thing? I believe it will.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my view Bill C-32 misses the mark completely. Sustainable environmental management are pretty words but they lack substance. What the World Wildlife Fund did in Belize, Central America, and what was done in KwaZulu/Natal are models of sustainable environmental management. Unfortunately we have not adopted this in our country. We have not embraced the concept, nor have we, in my view, engaged companies in the private sector to make them understand the benefits on their bottom line of having stable socioeconomic conditions and a stable environment. If that stabilization takes place, it will translate into more money on their bottom line.

I would be happy to speak to the member at length, but I draw his attention to those examples because they have saved dozens of species of flora and fauna and indeed have improved the health and welfare of the people, which has resulted in greater profits for the companies working in those areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member of the Reform Party for having shared with us his view on what environmental legislation properly administered by a department that assumes its responsibilities for co-ordination and takes steps to protect endangered species and eliminate toxic substances ought to be like.

Reform members have indicated that such objectives could never be met by the bill and by the environment department. I would like the hon. Reform member to tell my why he and his party would vote for Bill C-32 when it is the total opposite of what he is calling for.