Debates of June 1st, 1999

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak and to ask a few questions about several areas that I find rather puzzling in relation to this bill.

The first one that comes to mind has to do with investing millions of dollars in toxic research when the legislative vehicle provided by parliament sputters on three cylinders, panting along in a veritable obstacle race.

The official opposition offers an interesting benchmark for analysing the bill. Why would the official opposition support the bill? Why is it that a regional party like the Reform, with no base in Ontario, Quebec and eastern Canada, would support the bill? Is the Reform Party likely to support a bill strong on pollution prevention, strong on the elimination of toxic substances and strong on the definition of inherent toxicity?

These are questions for those who do not know the complex and technical bill that is passing through the Chamber right now. It is to them that these questions are directed. The political decision of Reform today to support the bill gives a clue to the real value of the bill as amended last night. The Reform position, I submit, was written by industry, the very industry the bill is supposed to control through pollution prevention.

Some people claim that Bill C-32 will put Canada on the leading edge of environmental protection law worldwide. This claim and other claims need to be examined closely.

There is much celebration of the fact that Bill C-32 places strict deadlines on the government to act to protect the environment and human health from toxic substances, namely three and a half years after a substance is determined to be toxic. Such determination alone may take many years and because of certain amendments adopted last night is likely to take longer. Even when action is taken it may be in the form of voluntary codes or other soft actions.

We should not be trumpeting that the strict deadlines will result in strict controls or bans. As for virtual elimination the claim that Canada is the first country to take the action of virtual elimination should also be considered very carefully.

In committee we tried to make it as strong as possible, but following last night's report stage amendments the definition is a far cry from the original intention of the committee.

Following the intervention of industry there is no guarantee under the bill that virtual elimination would achieve zero or near zero emissions. There is no requirement to push toward that desired result.

What comfort is it to Canadians if toxic chemicals get catalogued and assessed but not necessarily eliminated? All Bill C-32 can do for Canadians is reduce, perhaps one day, the release of toxic substances to a certain level but not necessarily to zero.

Another claim to be examined is that nine of the dirty dozen toxic substances so far slated for virtual elimination have been dealt with. When Canadians hear this claim, they would expect that these substances have been banned or at least their use severely limited by regulation.

People hearing this claim in the context of CEPA might also expect that the substances have been dealt with under CEPA, especially since CEPA is often called Canada's cornerstone legislation for environmental protection. In fact, the use of some of these substances has been voluntarily discontinued by the manufacturer. In other cases the substance is regulated not under CEPA but under the Pest Control Products Act.

Bill C-32 could have been a reasonably good law. Yet it is still a far cry from the red book promise on page 66 of the 1993 document which reads:

Canada needs a new approach that focuses on preventing pollution at source. Timetables must be set for phasing out all use of the most persistent toxic substances.

This is a far cry from the commitment in 1993. As I said, the bill could be a reasonably good one if the improvements made in committee had not been dismantled at the report stage; if business interests had not been put ahead of public health; if the official opposition had performed an effective role, which it did not; and if at the last minute, after the committee had reported to the House, cabinet ministers had not circumvented the good work of the committee by introducing last minute changes not examined in committee as in the case of nutrients and had not eliminated strong provisions thoroughly endorsed by the standing committee as in the case of inherent toxicity.

In the end what prevailed is the agenda of industry and of the Reform Party which is clearly in the pocket of industry. One just needs to look at its amendments or read its speeches at report stage and today to see the Reform's determination to ingratiate itself to industry with the next election in mind.

Considering the Reform performance on Bill C-32 and its strict adherence to the pressure of corporate lobbyists, an interesting question arises on whether our electoral law should continue to allow corporate donations to political parties.

It is interesting to note the member for Nanaimo—Alberni said in his speech yesterday that Canadians should be concerned about managing toxic substances, not preventing their use. What a great commitment to the status quo. The member's pronouncement reflects letters from industry lobby groups to MPs a few weeks ago, which we all received and must have noted.

To conclude, let me say that we missed many opportunities to have a strong bill. We had strong articulation of the precautionary principle. It was defeated. We offered a strong vehicle for the Minister of the Environment to prevent pollution in the growing agriculture industry. It was defeated. We strived for a strong fast track for dealing with inherently toxic substances. It was rejected.

We proposed strong provisions allowing the Minister of the Environment to protect the environment and human health arising from the expanding biotechnology sector. That opportunity was lost. We proposed an assurance that federal ministers of the environment and health could act quickly, where necessary, unimpeded by federal-provincial political considerations. It was defeated.

We proposed an assurance that the ministers could act quickly, where necessary, unimpeded by economic scare-mongering by industry lobbies and the Reform Party, unimpeded by members of cabinet with economic and not environmental mandates. That was also defeated.

As a result we have this bill at third reading. It could have been a reasonably good law. It could have been a strong piece of legislation for the next 10 years. It could have put health ahead of industrial interest. It could have put the public interest ahead of investment.

The most regrettable part of this entire debate is that somehow we conceptually fell into the trap of believing that we could not have strong environmental legislation at the same time as a healthy economy. We were somehow distracted by the belief initiated and well promoted by lobby groups that we could have only one or the other.

That is the major drawback which has somehow been in the way of the committee's work and in the way of parliament achieving the kind of legislation of which we could be proud for the next decade in relation to the prevention of pollution as written in the title of the bill and in relation to the protection of human health.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the member for Davenport on the bill is obviously not being substantiated by many people in the House and across the country. He is taking a minority position. In his arguments he is bringing forward to us the idea that it is the Reform Party's problem and the Reform Party's bill.

Does he agree the bill was put forward by the Liberal government and is being passed by a majority vote in the Liberal Party?

I have a second question which gets down to the technicalities of the bill and concerns discussions about scientifically based decision making. We have to be clear that international trade and issues dealing with pesticides are based on science only. The Europeans are denying beef access into Europe on a non-scientific basis. Health Canada has denied rBST on a non-scientific basis.

Would the member comment on whose bill it is and clarify that it is in fact a government bill? It takes government members to make sure there is a majority to get it through.

Would he also clarify that the bill is purely based on scientific decision making with regard to toxic substances? The bill provides for a national ban on substances banned in other provinces or industrialized countries. This abandons risk assessment as the basis for priorization and chemical control when it is the standard accepted internationally.

Does the bill not undermine the necessity of requiring science based decision making?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake is asking two questions, each of which would require a considerable amount of time to answer. I will try to start with the second one by saying that science is clearly ultimate in its conclusions and gives to humans on the planet the ultimate answer, the conclusive answer upon which we connect the laws of gravity, for instance.

There is a realm of science that covers a field in which there is no absolute certainty, for example the case of heavy metals where science cannot give us the ultimate answer. This is why the precautionary principle was invented some time ago.

We have learned over time particularly when it comes to toxic substances that have the potential capacity to damage human health and the ecosystem, that it is preferable to act when science is not completely conclusive on the assumption that it is better to act earlier rather than wait to see the smoking gun. This is as well as I can answer the hon. member's question.

As to the other question which is a very legitimate one which I welcome, of course we know who proposed the bill. We also know the role of the official opposition. It opposes almost everything in the House and votes against almost every bill that comes through the House.

This bill is so important in relation to the corporate and the industrial world. Why is it that the official opposition finds it possible to support this bill in contrast to its traditional attitude and role of opposing it, which is part of the way parliament is designed? Why did members of the official opposition propose amendments at report stage which were virtually word for word the same amendments proposed by the government? Why is there this desire and readiness on the part of the official opposition not to oppose this measure but to support it?

I think this is a very legitimate question. I hope the hon. member will reflect upon why his party and the Conservative Party have decided to support this measure the way that it is now, having dismantled the work of the committee at the report stage under pressure by industry and lobbyists here in Ottawa.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey Central.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, an act regarding pollution prevention, protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development in Canada.

Though other concerns have replaced the environment at the top of Canadians' list of issues, I am sure we will all agree that the environment will always be a serious matter across the political spectrum both federally and provincially. Canadians who are unfortunately the most prolific users of water can be called upon to do the right thing to clean up and protect that resource. They look to governments to provide leadership in that area.

Like recycling and conservation efforts in solid waste management, Canadians have shown themselves to be responsible, concerned and enthusiastic. However, I do not think they have much respect for big buck, one size fits all, government imposed solutions that feature the federal government competing against and overriding provincial and local initiatives.

My colleagues in the Reform Party have dispelled the notion that our party does not care about the environment and have made it very clear that successful programs to clean up the environment and keep it that way have to use a balanced approach.

As on so many issues that have a direct impact on the citizens of the country, the idea that one party or philosophy is against and their opposite numbers are for a certain item is simplistic and outdated. There is nobody here in the House or in the country who is for dirty water or dirty air, or somehow in favour of the chemicals in our food and in our soil.

In my corner of the country we struggle daily to grow the best quality food to feed Canadians and the world. We are more than aware that water is a precious resource. We are also aware that many government initiatives meant to clean up or control problems simply end up making things worse or creating new ones. That is why we look at these massive bills and all their amendments very carefully. Quite often it is more important to put the right system in place than to have no system at all.

The title of this bill suggests that all the elements are here to address this issue properly. But titles, like book covers, do not always tell what is inside.

This act is meant to address prevention of pollution and that is a noble effort by all measures. It would make our job so much easier if we had been successful in regulating chemical use in the past. We want to protect the environment and human health which cannot be more important. Then we see a reference to sustainable development which has become a bit of a political football between industry and environmental lobbyists.

To have successful legislation, we believe that all these elements must be included and that they must be addressed in a balanced manner. One way to do this is to ensure that what regulators and industry have at their disposal is good science.

We have seen with the health protection branch that when big money interests combine with butt-covering bureaucracy the result is often the political use of science on a selective basis and the undermining of credibility for the whole process. When we are dealing with chemicals used for industrial and agricultural purposes, we have the potential for the same thing.

With billions of dollars at stake, it is vital that players on both sides and the consumers who have to live with the consequences are confident that the process of identifying, regulating and approving substances be open and accountable. As with the tax system, when producers and consumers lose confidence they resort to avoidance and to reactions that might make problems worse rather than better.

It is no better when we have a powerful lobby on one side or the other. The perception that big industry has government in its pocket is contradicted when environmentalists step up to the plate.

I remember a few years ago when there was a panic in the U.S about the chemical alar. This was sprayed on apples and other orchard fruit to keep them on the branch longer. I am sure the developers of the chemical felt they had a good thing. The fruit would be better developed and more nutritious the longer it grew on the tree.

Nobody sets out to invent a chemical to cause human cancer but before long there were scientific tests that suggested that is what that chemical did. Very quickly there was a panic. Millions of mothers stopped buying apples and a year's crop had to be destroyed at a loss of billions of dollars to the producers. Farmers in the American northwest were devastated and it took years to get their customers back.

What was the so-called scientific basis for this panic? Like saccharin just a few years earlier, doses of alar so high that a child would virtually have to eat the stuff by the plateful were fed to rats until they developed tumours.

Because of a clause inserted in the Environmental Protection Act in the 1950s, any chemical that even hinted that it had anything to do with an illness of any sort had to be banned. It did not matter that the chemical had to be ingested by the truckload, it was just enough that one rat in a hundred seemed to get sick as a result. Saccharin by the way is back on the market, although it will never catch up to some of the other products after its fiasco.

Somebody might say “If it was your kid being saved, you might think it was worthwhile to ban certain chemicals before they got going”. Maybe, if anybody could ever pin down exactly what the relationship was between any one chemical and any given illness or combination of those.

We know that there are tens of thousands of chemicals in the environment. This fact is one reason for updating CEPA through Bill C-32. We should also be aware though that there are millions of natural chemicals everywhere we look. Just because they are from nature does not make them benign.

Tobacco for instance does not contain nicotine for human enjoyment. It is in fact a pesticide produced by the plant itself to ward off certain organisms. Try as we might to tell people of the terrible damage that this chemical and the hundreds of others found in tobacco smoke can do to their health, millions still light up daily. From that billions of dollars go to governments and multinational companies which shows what we are really up against here.

Would it be balanced to simply take the so-called right to smoke away from people? There are plenty of non-smokers who might like to go that route. But prohibition usually leads to increased use rather than the intended results, and governments would be forced to pay for an anti-smoking campaign at the same time as they were missing out on all those excise revenues they have come to enjoy. I am not suggesting that tobacco is a good example for Bill C-32; it is just an example of the jumble of health and economic issues that comes with most human activities.

When we consider what to do about thousands of chemicals, we cannot assume that blanket prohibition based on an agenda driven science and backed by the arbitrary powers of ministerial orders in council will be the answer to environmental problems. We need only look at the recent MMT fiasco to see where this leads.

The auto industry did not want MMT. Some lobby groups did not want MMT. But the producer of that chemical claimed to have extensive evidence that MMT was not the bogeyman it was made out to be. Millions of tax dollars later, the member for Hamilton East has another blunder on her record and the public is no closer to knowing whether or not there is anything wrong with this gasoline additive.

I am sure there are other gas additives out there that deserve closer scrutiny as well. There are environmentalists who would approve of banning the use of gasoline altogether. But unless we line up industry, consumers, scientists and regulators into a co-operative open system of examining chemicals and the processes that they are used in, the system will not work. It will break down.

We may think it is good enough to put arbitrary powers in the hands of a minister, but ministers can be influenced by powerful friends. We may think it is enough to hire scientists to do studies, but we have to be clear about what we are asking our scientists to look for and who is funding those results. We may think it is good enough to shut down agriculture or industry because a few are not being responsible, but the suffering throughout the economy would be enormous.

After Bill C-32 we still have disagreements about who is responsible for what. Industry hates uncertainty, and yes, that is important. Empirical studies indicate economic prosperity leads to a cleaner environment. When there is a profit to invest in better processes, there is less pollution, less waste.

Governments with successful economies can devote more money to infrastructure, like new water treatment plants and water transmission systems that do not leak water at the rates we see in many jurisdictions.

Agriculture and industry need profits to research and develop new products and technologies that will be more efficient. Anyone who thinks profit is a dirty word should think twice about what they are asking Canadian businesses to do or do without. We all want to clean up the environment and we should all have input into how that is done.

My party and I will be voting in favour of Bill C-32 with some caution. The version of the bill that went to committee we feel was on the right track. We want to see an environmental regime that reflects a multiparty approach to environmental issues. Ask all the stakeholders.

We can leave a cleaner country to our grandchildren than the one we inherited but we cannot ignore other responsibilities as well. We have to leave a record of responsible research, a model of intergovernmental co-operation, an economy that provides the greatest good for the greatest number and a tradition of open participation and involvement of all the stakeholders.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to what the member had to say. I may not have heard correctly but it seemed to me that he suggested that the auto industry was opposed to the banning of MMT.

My recollection is that it was quite the reverse. The auto industry was very concerned not only about the environmental effects of MMT but also about the effects of MMT on the diagnostic equipment which is now a part of every modern automobile. That is the equipment which monitors the emissions to the atmosphere of everything that the car produces. If in fact MMT is damaging those diagnostic parts of the vehicle, a vehicle could in fact be polluting tremendously without the owner knowing it.

Perhaps I misheard but it seemed to me the member suggested that the automobile industry did not want to ban MMT.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his clarification. I did say the auto industry was against MMT, not for it, because of the diagnostic problems that would result.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this morning it was a nice revelation to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment said she knew the difference between not environmentally friendly amendments and environmentally friendly amendments.

Does the hon. member know the difference between environmentally friendly amendments to this bill and not environmentally friendly amendments? How many environmentally friendly amendments were proposed by his party? They certainly did not succeed in supporting the amendments that we hoped would have strengthened the bill. On the issue of phase-out that was deleted last night in the amendments, is the hon. member aware that the most toxic substances in the country should have been a priority in the bill and the amendments were deleted by the way his party voted last night?

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was said earlier, I believe by the member for Churchill River, that this bill is not perfect and we certainly agree with that. As I said in my speech, we will be supporting the bill with caution. We would still like to see some changes. We would like to see further things done. This is an ongoing debate and it will be an ongoing process.

The biggest thing we need to see in any legislation like this is balance. Let us look at what the stakeholders are involved with. We saw that with the economic impact Kyoto had in my part of the country and the uncertainty that it creates for industry and so on. Industry is what creates jobs.

When we talk about environmental impacts we have to look at the economic environment and the impact on that as well. There has to be balance in everything we do. Right now a lot of the chemical companies and so on are almost in limbo waiting to see what is going to happen with this legislation. Certainly they lobbied hard to keep the status quo in some cases.

There are some cases where things need to be changed and others where we need to take a more moderate phase-in approach as the member has said.

All of the actions in the reports must be based on scientific reports, not politics. That is the basis where we are coming from. It has to be a balanced approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised the issue of MMT. I would hope he would recognize that action taken previously on MMT was not under CEPA.

Science will demonstrate the risks. Environment Canada is doing research on MMT at the University of Montreal with Professor Zayed. We have the power to regulate fuels within this bill, I believe it is in section 140. With the good CEPA that is being proposed today, we can do more on the fuels area. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association supported the changes that were being made in this area so we could do more. Does the member opposite recognize this fact?

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again we would have to go back to having anything to do with products like MMT based on scientific fact, not on public uproar fueled by all the stakeholders. It has to be a balanced approach. The idea that it can be regulated through CEPA is good. It gives us an avenue we can work through.

As I have indicated, there is a lot we can support in this bill but let us proceed with caution and revisit this as often as we need to in order to make it a better piece of legislation over the years.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-32, the government's review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA in short. Before I go any further I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster on the excellent speech he delivered in the House today.

Section 139 of the act requires a five year mandatory review of the administration of the act. The review we are debating today began in the last parliament.

The main purpose of Bill C-32 is to protect the environment and human health. This legislation provides measures for the protection of the environment and human health, pollution prevention, management of toxic substances, virtual elimination of the release of the most dangerous substances and partnerships to achieve the highest level of environmental quality.

CEPA replaces and incorporates several previously existing acts such as the Environmental Contaminants Acts, the Ocean Dumping Control Act, the Clean Air Act and many others.

Bill C-32 regulates the use of toxic chemicals by industry. It controls the importation, sale and disposal of dangerous chemicals including PCBs, dioxins and ozone depleting substances.

The act was intended to fill regulatory gaps in certain environmental matters, for example toxic substances. The act was also aimed at enabling Canada to fulfill international obligations. Bill C-32 is very complex and deals with aspects of pollution prevention.

The Reform Party supports realistic measures that protect the environment and balance environmental concerns with economic concerns. Reform believes that environmental considerations must carry equal weight with economic, social and technical considerations in the development of a project. This is key to protecting our environment.

Reform believes in public consultation, public participation and public commitment. Governments must work together to ensure our environment is a priority.

When Bill C-32 was introduced in the House of Commons we were pleased to note many changes had been made to improve the legislation compared to the bill that died on the Order Paper in the last parliament. The previous bill reviewing CEPA was the Liberal government's attempt to do a five year review of CEPA and it failed.

For over nine months the government's second attempt to review CEPA was under review by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Over 400 amendments were tabled in committee. Reform fought hard to maintain the original intent of the bill. Over 100 amendments were passed which changed the bill significantly.

Canadians need the tools for environmental protection. Amendments to this bill threaten to handicap Canadians with unrealistic and unworkable regulations.

What are the key problems with the committee's amendments to Bill C-32? This is the big question. There are three main areas of concern. One is ministerial power. The Liberals want to give the minister too much autocratic power. The second is science based decision making. The Liberals are allowing politics to interfere with environmental decision making. That is wrong. The third is a cost effective approach. The Liberals have not been consistent in maintaining a cost effective approach to protecting our environment. In fact, I do not think the concept of a cost effective approach exists on the benches on the other side.

There are 11 other areas of concern which follow after the committee amendments. I will name only a few. Among them are: pollution prevention planning; limitless power of ministers to interfere with exports; export of hazardous waste; environment emergency planning; and the precautionary principle. All references to cost effectiveness in the bill have been removed. On the use of the word toxics the bill needs to focus on the management rather than the use of toxic substances. On residual powers, there are many areas of interdepartmental overlap and duplication.

The Reform Party put forward amendments to address all those areas of concern. Canadians will support legislation that is practical and effective. Canadians need the framework to provide for stability and economic feasibility. Legislation must enhance our ability to improve environmental performance. Canadians must be able to implement sustainable development and remain competitive and profitable.

Our approach to the environment must be balanced. We need a strong healthy economy in order to take concrete action to protect our environment.

The Reform Party supports sustainable development which is human activity that combines economic, social and environmental considerations without compromising the well-being of existing and future generations. We support the rationalization of federal and provincial laws and the development of regional and/or national environmental standards where appropriate. We support the integration of social, environmental and economic objectives into Canada's environmental management, philosophy, structure, procedures and planning.

We feel that strong federal leadership is needed for a commitment to sustainable development. This includes creating partnerships with provincial governments, private industry, educational institutions and the public in order to promote meaningful progress in the area of environmental protection.

With respect to Bill C-32 we support the principle of establishing and regularly reviewing standards that are based on sound science and which are technologically, socially and economically viable.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments on the bill. I noticed my colleague talked about the need for sustainable development and how we in the Reform Party are very supportive of that.

[An hon. member]

That is a new twist.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

We hear quite a bit of chatter coming from the NDP, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure they will get up and make their comments in due course on their own.

At the hearings we had for the trade committee in Winnipeg the International Institute for Sustainable Development talked about some destructive policies that occur especially by the use of subsidies. They said that can hurt our environment and hurt the drive for sustainable development.

They pointed to agricultural practices such as in the Netherlands and even in Canada where subsidies have had the negative effect of hurting the amount of topsoil in the last 100 years. Half of our topsoil has been depleted as a result of practices largely encouraged by subsidies.

They talked about practices in the Amazon, in Holland and in Denmark in terms of how many nitrates go into the ground water as a result of the heavy subsidies that take place. The heavy use of nitrogen especially in agriculture practices because of the subsidies that are used to produce food in those countries is very destructive to our environment.

Does my colleague have any thoughts on how destructive these practices are and the need to get rid of subsidies and get back to a market economy rather than the use of subsidies as a way of dealing with things to help clean up our environment?

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the thoughtful question by the hon. member for Peace River. He is innovative in his thinking and I always appreciate it when he asks intelligent questions.

Sustainable development is a very important concept. Whether it is in foreign aid, even in CIDA where we spend lots of money, we forget about the sustainable development part of it or the benefits we are able to retrieve. Similarly on environment issues when subsidies are given to certain companies they lavishly spend them on fertilizers and so on.

My first degree is in agriculture. That is my background. I understand the excessive use of these chemicals and how they imbalance the properties of the soil and their adverse environmental effects. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Peace River that this is a bad concept.

As I mentioned, sustainable development is a human activity that combines economic, social and environmental considerations without compromising the development of existing and future generations. It is definitely our moral responsibility to take care of those things and hand over our environment and the planet to the next generation in the form that we got them. That is our moral obligation.

When we see all kinds of pollution taking place and all kinds of chemicals being leached into the water, into our streams and soil, and the air being polluted, it is a very important concept that we focus on sustainable development. Whether it is subsidies or other factors, they should be well taken care of.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we seem to be having a bit of a love-in today with members climbing on board the environmental wagon. That is a good thing. Obviously the environment should transcend partisan lines and political differences so that we can pass legislation like Bill C-32 that will put some teeth into the areas of enforcement in dealing with toxic substances by giving the minister and the ministry the powers that are needed.

I find it somewhat interesting though to hear members opposite criticize the bill from the point of view that it gives too much power to the minister or the ministry officials. In question period they would be on their feet waxing somewhat indignantly demanding action and that someone do something. There is a little bit of a contradiction there. However in the spirit that this debate seems to be exuding, I will try to stay away from those aspects.

This bill is about a number of things. It is about toxic substances, the testing, recognition and control of them, the planning on how to eliminate them and the damage they do to human health and to our ecology. It is about air quality and water quality, things that are extremely important to all of us in our ridings and in our large urban communities. It is about enforcing and policing, which I think is long overdue, giving the appropriate authorities the tools they need to deal with people who violate.

I can tell stories about years gone by in Mississauga when certain chemical companies and others, and in fairness to them it was many years ago, were releasing some of their substances into the storm sewers. This was back in the days when I was on city council. Downstream we had situations where people were panicking because there was foam bubbling up through the grates of the storm sewers. Kids were playing outside. No one knew what it was; they were trying to figure it out. Through the region of Peel we ultimately traced it back to the general area. Even though in that particular case we were unable pinpoint the violator, we called a meeting of all industrial companies in the area to show them the damage.

To be fair, I do not know if it was intentional, inadvertent or otherwise, but someone poured some substances into the storm sewer. This can have a devastating impact downstream on all the creeks and streams in my community which ultimately lead into Lake Ontario, from which we draw our drinking water. I should hasten to add that we put it through a cleansing system. We do not drink it straight out of the lake.

This kind of situation is extremely important. It is important that we have a bill which gives the minister the authority to order some kind of planning by potential industrial polluters that could damage our water quality.

Air quality is another issue I find quite interesting. The solution to dealing with waste in our communities over the years in some instances has been to truck it out of the GTA into the Detroit market and put it in an incinerator, at which point it is burned and the prevailing winds bring it all back into Canada. I am not sure that is a particularly intelligent way of dealing with waste disposal. It is surely not an intelligent way of dealing with air quality.

I want to talk about pollution prevention and sustainable development, but before doing so I acknowledge the work by many members on both sides of the House. I particularly want to say that we are all busy doing various things.

My role as an MP over the past several months has been to chair a task force on youth entrepreneurship. I have been travelling all over the country. I also work on citizenship and immigration issues. I have not had time to attend the environmental committee hearings, but I have read them, followed them, talked with my colleagues, and listened to presentations at caucus.

As all of us are busy doing different things in our parliamentary lives, we rely on members who carry the torch and candle for any particular issue. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the tremendous work of the parliamentary secretary, the member for Burlington, in the leadership that she has shown in shepherding the bill through committee, through report stage and on to third reading.

I acknowledge the member for Davenport, a former environment minister and a man respected across the country for his dedication to environmental issues and his hard work. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis who is sharing my time has shown great perseverance. For some years I have known the member for North York to be totally committed to improving our environment, from dealing with toxic substances, air quality and water quality, to enforcement issues.

Of course there is the Minister of the Environment. Those of us on this side are extremely proud of the efforts she has made at a time when raising the environment to the top of the political agenda was perhaps not as politically sexy as it once was. Because of financial constraints and for all of the wrong reasons the minister had to fight hard around the cabinet table. She has worked with her members in caucus and in committee to ensure these issues were brought forward.

I also acknowledge the work of the member in our caucus who chairs the committee on sustainable development. That is the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who has worked doggedly to bring forward and highlight these issues. I very much appreciate that.

I noticed that provisions throughout the bill acknowledge the roles of technology, technical knowledge and innovation in securing the protection of the environment and human health for Canadians today and tomorrow.

I recently had the privilege along with the minister responsible for foreign trade of attending a team Canada trip with 62 young entrepreneurs to Silicon Valley. We visited the Alameda naval base, 1,700 acres of land in the valley area outside Oakland. It is closed. On the edge of that land is a landfill site full of toxic chemicals and live ammunition. We actually had to sign a waiver before we went out there in case we stepped on something inappropriate. I wondered why we were going but in any event we survived.

The purpose of my story is to tell the House that there is a $160 million clean-up contract for that landfill site. It is leaching right into the ocean. There is a $160 million U.S. contract and there are eight companies involved in cleaning it up.

Seven of those companies are Canadian companies and the lead technology is from the University of Waterloo. We can be extremely proud that in the area of environmental sciences this country is producing the technology and the technicians to lead the way in environmental clean-up. The eighth company, the American company, is the one that hauled away the residue after the treatment had taken place. We do have some things of which we can be proud in the areas of technology and showing leadership.

I will touch on another area of the bill which I think is vitally important. We tend to think the best way to solve problems is to wrap them around tax cuts or tax rebates for people who show leadership in the area.

The bill provides the opportunity for an awards system. It is my view that Canadians want to be recognized for contributing to their communities. They want to be recognized for contributing to improving the environment. What better way than putting it into the bill? It allows an opportunity for an awards program. They can with great pride put a plaque on a wall in the office or in the study at home. They can share with their families and be recognized for their vital contributions.

That is worth far more than some kind of income tax cut for a company. It sends a message to all Canadians that we want them to buy into cleaning up the environment. Some would say that it is trite to say, but we have simply borrowed this space for our children. We can hope that we leave it in better shape.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been in force for 11 years; it dates from 1988. Five years have already gone by since the government presented its report recommending that the legislation be reviewed.

For 11 years, therefore, we have been talking about introducing legislation that would be more progressive and more consistent with the latest advances in society. When the bill was referred to the parliamentary committee, it was deficient in every respect. It was certainly not as far-reaching or strong as the previous bill, Bill C-74, which died on the order paper when the last election was called.

After all the work done by the committee, the hundreds and hundreds of hours spent by colleagues from all parties, I think that we transformed a very imperfect bill into one that was certainly improved, that represented a reasonable compromise among members of all parties.

Then sadly big business went to work. When the bill came out of committee and reached the House at report stage, the formidable industrial lobby was in place. Eleven large big business associations started to write letters to all parliamentarians which filtered through the offices of the establishment and started to level the usual threats at all parliamentarians. I understand some members were reminded of the marvellous political donations these big industrial giants gave.

Among the usual threats was the threat of closure. That is almost invariable. The aluminium industry said that if the bill were not changed, it would physically close its aluminium plants and take them somewhere else.

Another industrial group of associations said that if the bill went through the way it was, all the wood burning stoves and waste incinerators in the fishing villages of Newfoundland would have to be closed.

Of course we listened. Sadly we always do. We always worry about the formidable threats of the industrial lobby. We are scared that it will move its plants and stop investments. It always seems to work.

In some very key areas industry wanted diluted, we diluted them. The precautionary principle, a key part of the bill, was diluted. Inherent toxicity, another key element of the bill, was diluted. Virtual elimination, which to start with was not very strong because it did not go as far as the 1993 red book commitment of phasing out the use of all toxic chemicals at source, only refers to releases. Even then industry cried foul and it was diluted.

The minister's prerogatives in certain areas where our jurisdiction is very clear, such as international air and international water, was diluted in favour of the minister having to go to cabinet to justify reports.

I am saddened that in certain cases such as inherent toxicity the question never came up at committee. We were happy with what was finally arrived at and suddenly there was a change.

With regard to virtual elimination, the irony is that the definition accepted by the committee was the government's definition. The government felt that the original wording in the act when it came before the committee was very confusing. This is what we all felt. With the help of people as highly placed as the deputy minister, it was rewritten and re-presented by the government in an amended form. We did not think it was perfect but we agreed. Then big business said it went too far and the government diluted its own amendment.

We finally found out that a little clause crept in somehow which had to do with review of the act. In the original bill it was supposed to be in place for seven years before being reviewed. We amended it to five years, as it presently is, but now we find out that the review might be carried out by either a House of Commons committee, a committee of the Senate or a joint committee. Before it had to be a House committee, but a little amendment was included to say that it could be here or there.

What irony that a bill of the House of Commons, which has taken 11 years to create, would perhaps not be reviewed by us. If the government does not like all the environmental cracks in committee then it would send it to the Senate to be looked after.

This morning the cat came out of the bag. My colleague refers to a love-in between Reform and the government today. I am sorry to say it is like a blind date. The introducer of the two lovers is big industry. They have found a way to get together and agree on all the various amendments industry supported.

The member for Nanaimo—Alberni made the admission, and I agree with him, that all the work was to bring back the bill to what it was when it arrived at committee. He said that the committee must be balanced. What we did was to bring back the bill to the point where it was before it went to committee, which means, in logical fashion, that the committee means nothing at all.

Some will say, as do Reform members, that there must be a balance between the economy and the environment. Investment and business cannot suffer, as if they do when they are environmentally friendly. All facts point exactly to the reverse. I pointed out the other day that all of the firms which have been environmentally friendly have increased their profits, their investments, their presence and their labour force.

The 3M company, since 1995 when it instituted Pollution Prevention Pays, has saved $800 million U.S. and tonnes and tonnes of pollution, as well as United Technologies, Baum in Germany, firms in Sweden and elsewhere.

The debate today is really about two points of view within a system: the short term and the seven generations, the coin value and the common weal value, the public good. In this balance human health must have priority. It must always come first. That is the side I happen to be on.

I would love to have been able today to stand to say that I back this bill 100%. I am a member of the government. The reason I am here as part of the Liberal Party is because I believe strongly in its fundamental values. However, I cannot live with the dilutions the government has brought forth on virtual elimination, on the precautionary principle, on inherent toxicity, on the minister's powers, and then the little sneaky amendment about the Senate committee. I cannot live with those things.

I want to be at peace with myself, regardless of how much I suffer when I stand differently from my colleagues. I would like to stand with them. Sadly, I cannot support this bill.

I saw this morning a parade of Reform members saying how much they back this bill. I remember the debate on climate change when they, almost like members of the flat earth society, said that the scientists who were saying that climate change was a big problem were wrong. When I see them today endorsing this bill I say to myself that I must be on the right side. I might be one of a tiny, tiny minority, but I believe in what I believe. I think this bill is flawed and I will not support it.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member opposite said this afternoon. I think it is commendable that he used the word balance. I would like to ask the hon. member, what exactly does balance mean? I would suggest to him that perhaps it is not an either/or proposition.

It seems to me that to be environmentally friendly is a good plan. It is economically sound. It is of social benefit. It is not an either/or proposition. It is almost as if all industry has to be some kind of an enemy to the environment. That is not true. I do not believe that and neither does he, I am sure.

I would like him to clarify exactly what he believes the word balance means. What kind of balance would he propose for industry and environmentalists?

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

Mr. Speaker, this whole debate about balance is a red herring. There is no such thing. What I believe in is total integration, the holistic integration of all issues.

The environment and the economy are certainly not enemies or adversaries. I never said that. On the contrary, I pointed out that every business which has been environmentally friendly finds itself being a better business. It makes more money and it is a better corporate citizen.

However, laws are not made for the people who observe them. If we all observed the laws the same way, we would not need laws about red lights. We would not need laws about stopping at stop signs. If everybody observed the speeding laws, there would not be cops to catch us. We have to have laws for those who pollute. It is a minority that pollutes and the laws are directed to that minority, not to the environmentally friendly corporations. It is to the minority that these laws are geared.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. We keep hearing about a lobby that was put forward by industry, but is it not true that members of the committee received letters from all sides on this issue and not just the one? In fact, people passed along their views from all areas of society. I know that I received those comments. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course we received letters from all sides, but the interesting point is that the amendments reflected here on the key issues are not on the side in which I believe. The side of big business was adopted almost word for word. All of these letters threatened us. They told us they were going to close the plants. They told us they were going to shut down the wood-burning stoves and make us afraid. They even sent threats saying that they give political donations and that we should remember that.

There it is. The amendments that came in now, which I am fighting against, were not the amendments we received and to which I would subscribe. They were the amendments that big business wanted. They must be jumping for joy today. That is the sad part of it.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in thanking the hon. member for his thoughtful analysis, I would ask him if he could once again elaborate on this issue of balance which seems to cause a conceptual problem to members of the Reform Party who have raised this issue all morning and who do not seem to understand what really is the role of the environment in relation to the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue has to be the total integration of the environment and the economy. It goes back a long way, to the Brundtland report of 1987 and before.

Our aboriginal brothers and sisters have understood this for 10,000 years. They talk about the concept of seven generations, that Mother Earth is one and that everything is connected to everything else.

This business of saying that we have to have balance so that nobody loses is completely passé. It has no place in society. What we want is a holistic society of values, where all of these things are interlinked.

If corporate business conducts itself in the manner of being a good neighbour to the next door plant, the next door individual, the next door stream or the next door lake, there is nothing to worry about. There is no need for balance then. They will be happier. They will make more money. They will be better corporate citizens. They will not have people such as the hon. member for Davenport or myself on their backs.

What we are against is those who breach environmental laws and pollute the atmosphere. That is why we have toxic dumps like the Sydney tar ponds and the arsenic leaching out of Giant Mines. These are the people whom we are addressing in this legislation.

My balance, in those cases, is very much in favour of the environment and human health every time. That is why I would support a much stronger bill today.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Laval East.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32 at third reading. I was also pleased to hear the speech by Quebec's former environment minister, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, in which he took an in-depth look at the environmental question.

The problem the Bloc Quebecois has is much more one of jurisdiction. We do not agree with the double net theory. I now turn the floor over to my colleague.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing the debate at third reading of the Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

With praiseworthy and environmental objectives, this new legislation represents, once again, a centralizing focus in which pollution prevention becomes nominally a national objective, that is pan-Canadian.

However, we all know that the environment is a shared jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the environment is no doubt the broadest and most encompassing and covers vegetation, animals and humans. It includes the great planetary phenomena and the smallest micro-ecosystems.

The Constitution cannot give the federal government alone total jurisdiction over natural resources, energy, agriculture, waste management, international treaties, fish stock management, air and water quality, animal protection, land management and the list goes on.

The federal and the provincial governments therefore share responsibility according to the more specific nature of each of the issues. Nevertheless, generally speaking, as the dissenting opinion of the Bloc Quebecois pointed out judiciously in response to the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and I quote:

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 have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.

The level of government closest to the reality experienced by Quebecers is certainly not that of Ottawa.

Unfortunately, the inheritors of Trudeau thought opposite, believe the contrary. Ottawa knows best. By way of illustration, let us consider what the Liberal majority did during consideration of Bill C-32 in committee.

The original version of the bill called for the federal government to act within the spirit of the intergovernmental agreements. The Liberals on the committee modified that intent by amending it with the addition of the words endeavour to, so as not to oblige or constrain the federal government to co-operate with the provinces.

Faithful to their old ways, the federal Liberals prefer to see the federal government dominate the provinces, instead of working in close collaboration with them. They would have had trouble finding a better example to demonstrate once again the Liberals' obstinate refusal to respect the provinces' jurisdiction over the environment.

This syndrome of dominant federalism lies, moreover, at the very heart of the whole piece of legislation we are debating. Starting with the preamble, the Liberals want to set out national environmental standards and codes of practice relating to ecosystems and environmental quality. The preamble states that the presence of toxic substances is of national interest.

The bill also states that environmental protection is a national goal and to that end it creates a national clearing house on pollution prevention.

As well, it gives the government the authority to establish a national fuel mark, and a national mark for motors that comply with these standards.

In short, what is better for stimulating the old Liberal reflex of reliving the past, than a statement that everything is in the national interest, in order to more easily invade areas of jurisdiction by setting national standards, while of course the National Assembly will not have a word to say in the matter.

In theory, Bill C-32 acknowledges the environment as a shared federal and provincial responsibility. In practice, however, it is aimed at reinforcing the preponderance of the federal government, the government of the best country in the world as far as environmental protection is concerned.

Behind its noble facade, Bill C-32 is, in reality, nothing but a reproduction of the duplications, overlaps and encroachments into areas of provincial jurisdiction. In order to justify such a waste of energy and public funds, the federal Liberals are taking refuge behind a supreme court decision, the Solicitor General of Canada v. Hydro Quebec.

At issue in that case was the jurisdiction of the federal parliament over the environment. All the courts that had heard the case before the supreme court had ruled that the federal order was invalid. As a last resort, the federal government turned to the supreme court and, surprise, even the friends of the federal government issued a judgment that was not unanimous. Four of the nine judges concluded, and I quote:

Granting Parliament the authority to regulate so completely the release of substances into the environment by determining whether or not they are “toxic” would inescapably preclude the possibility of shared environmental jurisdiction and would infringe severely on other heads of power assigned to the provinces.

Unfortunately, the five other judges were more in line with the centralizing vision of the federal government. Contrary to the arguments put forth by the four judges of the supreme court, the Court of Quebec, the Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal, the majority came to the conclusion that it was wholly within parliament's power to enact laws on the environment, under the Constitution Act, 1867.

This ruling violates the very principle of equality between the federal government and the provinces regarding the protection of the environment. It states on the contrary that the provinces have a role to play in this area only if it complements that of the federal government. So, the supreme court tells us that if there is a dispute between the federal and provincial governments, it is Ottawa that has the final say.

Today, the federal government is using that ruling to increase its legislative powers regarding the environment. As usual, the Liberal government is forgetting its fundamental legislation, the Constitution, which recognizes that the environment is a shared jurisdiction, in order to subordinate the role of the provinces to big brother in Ottawa.

I would like to give a concrete example of the ridiculous situations in which we will find ourselves if this bill is passed. The legislation puts the spotlight on pollution prevention and includes the power to require pollution prevention plans. This implies the development of a direct partnership between the federal government and the industrial sectors targeted.

The problem is that such partnership programs already exist between the Government of Quebec and certain industrial sectors. One example is the program to reduce industrial waste, now operating in the pulp and paper sector. Duplication? Certainly not.

What the federal government hopes to do is force the provinces to adopt its regulations, or it will deal directly with the individuals, organizations or industries concerned. Overlap? No, no, no. In order to get what it wants, the Liberal government is barging in and upsetting the very consensus it should be trying to create in as sensitive and troubled a field as the environment.

Ultimately, this disagreement over Bill C-32 is rooted in two visions of the same reality, two ways of doing things that have nothing to do with any failure to respect the Canadian Constitution.

Short of eliminating the provinces, the Liberal government must at all costs impose an effective centralizing power in order to maintain political cohesion in the rest of Canada. The Bloc Quebecois respects this vision, and the rest of Canada has already accepted it with the social union agreement, for one.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that Quebec as a nation would be better served if it had one fully responsible government, rather than eleven with partial responsibility. Hence our notion of partnership with the rest of Canada, with respect for our different ways of seeing and doing things.

In this context, Bill C-32, with its heavy dose of paternalism and domination, would no longer have a place. Two sovereign nations would mutually agree to emphasize prevention and protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.