Debates of April 27th, 2001

Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am torn on that one having raised three sons, having been around a number of young people, having been a school trustee, and having been young and having started smoking. Sometimes the criticism of smoking is incentive enough for young people to think they should smoke because they want to take that stand.

We need legislation to disallow producers from taking any kind of cash payment or any kind of payment from tobacco companies to promote smoking. That is the issue. There are tobacco companies and cigarette producers which are feeding into movie producers and sponsoring them if they have smoking in their presentations.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 1919 at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, a doctor summoned some medical students to an autopsy saying that the patient's disease was so rare that most of the students would never see it again. It was lung cancer.

This story is from a December 1992 article by Dr. John Meyers entitled “Cigarette Century” from Time magazine. It illuminates like a lightning flash this fact: much, probably most, of our hideously costly health care crisis is caused by unwise behaviour associated with drugs, eating, driving recklessly, sex, alcohol, violence, insufficient exercise and especially smoking.

Focusing on wellness, on preventing rather than causing illness, will reduce the waste inherent in disease oriented hospital centred high tech medicine. The history of the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer illustrates the fallacy of associating health with the delivery of medicine.

One of those 1919 medical students later wrote that he did not see another case of lung cancer until 1936. Then, in six months, he saw nine cases. By the 1930s advances in immunology and public health measures such as sanitation, the handling of food and so on, were reducing the incidence of infectious diseases. However we were about to experience an epidemic in behaviourally driven disease.

The lung cancer epidemic can be said to have sprung from the 1881 invention of a cigarette making machine. Prior to that commercial manufacturing of cigarettes was largely a cottage industry. However by 1888 North Carolina's James Buchanan Duke, whose wealth brought Duke University to life, was selling nearly a billion cigarettes annually throughout North America. Between 1910 and 1919, cigarette production increased by 633%. The U.S. national cigarette service committee distributed cigarettes free to soldiers in France during World War I.

In 1930 the lung cancer death rate among men was less than five per 100,000 per year. By the 1950s, after another war in which cigarettes were sold for a nickel a pack, were distributed free in forward areas and were included with K-rations to soldiers, the lung cancer death rate among men had quadrupled to more than 20 per 100,000. Today it is more than 70 per 100,000. Women's lung cancer rates are soaring and lung cancer is far and away the leading cause of cancer deaths.

According to the World Health Organization, about half of all long term smokers die from tobacco related illnesses and half of those die in middle age, losing 20 to 25 years of productive life.

We have come a long way from the early days of television when sponsor-anchorman John Cameron Swayze's The Camel News Caravan required him to have a lit cigarette constantly visible to the audience.

The social disaster of smoking addiction illustrates why behaviour modification, especially education, is the key to containing health costs.

To that end, legislation such as the bill we are debating today, the tobacco excise tax act, can serve the public good. However the government must address concerns about the increased smuggling that may result from a spike in tobacco costs and the difficulty of policing our vast borders.

We must not forget that when combating smoking, drugs, foul language and other mischievous activities, especially among the young, social stigma has its place, as the member for Elk Island put it. Information campaigns about the public health dangers of smoking have a role to play as well.

The addictive qualities of tobacco and the craving for the product at the lowest possible price could spur a dramatic increase in cigarette smuggling. On January 27, 1994, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the current government House leader, recognized these concerns when he told the House:

Our country is faced with a serious smuggling problem. As a non-smoker, I am generally in favour of high taxes on tobacco to help discourage young people from smoking. However, the reality in Canada today is completely different. Because of the smuggling problem in our country, almost any young Canadian can buy cigarettes cheaply, even illegally...We have no choice, Mr. Speaker. We must put an end to this illegal activity by reducing, however temporarily, taxes on tobacco. We have to work together to enforce the laws of our country.

This was followed by an ambitious crackdown on cigarette smugglers. The government told MPs it would dedicate 700 RCMP officers to anti-smuggling operations and that anyone participating in the tobacco smuggling trade in any capacity would be subject to the full range of sanctions and penalties under the law.

Presumably enthused by the new found enforcement of our laws, on October 20, 1994, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca called on the government to restore the tax on tobacco to the level that existed on January 1 of that year and to put the increased revenue into health care financing. His call was opposed by the current government House leader who told members the smuggling situation persisted and that the Minister of Health had tabled a report two months earlier which had showed the reduction in taxes had not resulted in an increase in smoking.

The government House leader was wrong. From 1979 to 1991 the real price of cigarettes in Canada increased by 159% and teenage smoking fell from 42% to 16%. In 1994 Canada's reduced tobacco taxes, which were in response to concerns about smuggling, caused the real price of cigarettes to fall by one-third. As a result, teenage smoking increased from 16% to 20% and total tobacco consumption began increasing, especially among young Canadians.

From a health point of view this was a clear and significant failure. Revenue losses were equally acute. The February 1994 tax cuts resulted in a combined federal and provincial revenue loss of over $1.2 billion for the fiscal year 1994-95. The federal loss was $656 million, more than twice what the government had predicted.

In 1998 the government increased cigarette prices to try to reduce consumption. On April 20 of that year the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier rose in the House to inform his colleagues that the morning's papers showed that the increase had brought back cigarette smuggling with a vengeance to southern Quebec and Ontario.

The government has dropped the ball on this file in the past, both on the taxation side and the smuggling side. The government's batting average has been far from good.

On May 9, 2000, during a debate of Bill C-24, the so-called sales tax and excise tax amendment act, the member for North Vancouver reminded the House that up to that point, despite the government's dedication of over 700 RCMP officers to the cause, not one person had been charged with cigarette smuggling.

During that same day's debate the member for Elk Island told the House:

It was about three, four or five years ago that cigarette smuggling was a huge issue, so the government decided to reduce the taxes on cigarettes to make the price differential between smuggled cigarettes and those purchased at the store less so there would be less demand for the black market, thereby reducing smuggling. The government tells us that this has had some effect.

Bill C-24 will once again increase cigarette taxes...However, I have to ask the question: If high taxes were part of the reason for developing the smuggling industry in the first place, would it not be possible that by increasing these taxes, as Bill C-24 will do, the problem will return?

I was not a member of the House when those comments were made and yet today we are considering the same question with Bill C-26.

Having worked in Ottawa in 1997 and 1998 and travelled to and from British Columbia extensively at the time, I can tell my colleagues that straight prices for cigarettes in Ottawa were roughly the same as duty free prices for cigarettes at Vancouver International Airport.

At that time federal cigarette taxes were high in Vancouver but dramatically reduced in the Ottawa area in an attempt to reduce smuggling in this part of the country. If taxes are to have the universal benefit of reducing smoking they must be applied at the same level in every part of the country. There cannot be a gap in the cost of cigarettes across Canada. This has been a failure in the past.

As a person who is interested in discouraging smoking from coast to coast, I remind the government that unless it deals effectively with smugglers and enforces the laws of our country, the problems that have plagued past efforts to reduce smoking will return to haunt the government.

Upon passage of the bill it is important that the government carefully and aggressively establish a plan to fight an impending surge of smuggling. If it does not, the good intentions behind the bill will fail to produce what most Canadians want: a healthier country inhabited by fewer smokers.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in the smuggling issue with respect to raising taxes on cigarettes. I may have missed the early part of the member opposite's speech. Did he make any reference to the price of cigarettes and tobacco in the United States?

During the last go around on this issue, the reason smuggling became such a large industry, particularly in eastern Canada and the Montreal area, was because of the price disparity of cigarettes across the border. I wonder whether the member opposite has done any analysis or looked at all at what the current prices of tobacco are right now vis-à-vis the time before when we went through a major price increase because it seems to me that the price of cigarettes in the United States has risen in the interval and that may ameliorate the smuggling problem when we raise the taxes ourselves.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The point is taken, Madam Speaker. However the member knows that in the United States, just as in Canada, the lion's share of cigarette costs is taxation. In the United States, therefore, as we see with as Michigan, New York, North Dakota and Washington, cigarette prices vary from state to state. This puts an increased obligation on Canada to keep smuggling out of the country, and we must fulfil that responsibility.

As the member knows, in places like Akwesasne we have a tremendously complex border with differing police jurisdictions and the government must make sure it sufficiently guards that border.

I will also note that one cause of cigarette smuggling is the increase in price that results from aggressive taxation policies designed to discourage smoking.

In Great Britain, for example, the government has decided to implement, on an interim basis and with a sunset clause, a 5% increase in cigarettes taxes each year. The U.K. government argues that it is best if such increases are done cyclically, as seen with Canada's increase of 1993, its drop of 1994, its increases of 1996 and 1998, and its expected increase of 2001. If such tax increases are too great or too sudden they will cause a surge in the black market.

The government in Westminster has implemented a gradual increase in taxation. There is no instant spurring of the cost of cigarettes and therefore no spurring of black market or smuggling activity. That is the sort of legislation the Canadian government should keep in mind if it is to continue down the path of increasing cigarette taxes to reduce consumption.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak to Bill C-26 concerning the raising of taxes on cigarettes.

My position is not an easy one to take. When I consider raising taxes I swallow rather hard. Canadians are hurting desperately because of the taxes they pay, and imposing even more taxes cannot be healthy for the country. However the bill is less about raising taxes than about stopping the use of cigarettes. It is a health matter.

The use of cigarettes in our country has become a serious health issue and it must stop. I have been involved in the health care system for many years. When I talk with my counterparts I understand that one in six patients has a tobacco related problem. Canada has a critical problem with its health care system and cigarette smoking.

However to suggest that increasing cigarette taxes will solve the country's health care woes is misguided and dangerous. It is only one piece of the puzzle. We need to look at the whole puzzle and determine what must be done to change the paradigm and the way people think about tobacco use.

It would be better to ask where cigarette taxes are being spent. If they are not being spent to determine the health dangers of cigarettes then we have a serious problem. We need a game plan that does more than raise taxes because that is not the whole issue. The issue is about stopping cigarettes and the damage they do to the health of Canadians.

We should ask whether that can be accomplished. My father smoked all his life. I look at kids today and think of when I went to school and how difficult it was to discern whether or not to smoke. I was saved because of a basketball team and a coach who decided that if we smoked we would not be able to play. Those were the issues.

Teenagers are very vulnerable. The battle is about who will win the minds of our children with regard to cigarettes: the tobacco companies which are putting more and more nicotine into their cigarettes so they are more addictive, or the government which should address the issue in an educational sense so that teenagers know they are becoming victims rather than exercising free choice.

I believe a society should have free choice and that we should stop victimizing the weak. Someone who starts smoking at age 13 will have spent $15,000 on tobacco by age 30. That is a down payment on a good home or half the price of a good car. That does not even take into account the health effects of smoking.

Tobacco companies in Canada reap $260 million in profits every year from the sale of cigarettes to teenagers. Ninety per cent of those who start smoking do so between the ages of 13 and 20. That is where the battle must be fought. Approximately 28% of teenage girls in Canada smoke cigarettes.

The real question is whether we can win the war. Can we win the battle at that level? Let us look at the example of alcohol. Massive education campaigns have seen drinking and driving in Canada decline dramatically from what it was a couple of decades ago.

We have to be careful when we look at other countries and examine what they are doing. What California has done is worthy of note. It has put the pieces of the puzzle together a little more than we have here in Canada. As a result it has moved its percentage of teenage smokers from 30% down to 9% today. That is a success story that we need to perhaps model ourselves on and improve on, because it is an area that we have to look at.

The whole area of health care is something I would like to address because it is a bigger picture issue. We need to understand that if we are to address efficiencies in health care and sustain a health care system, we have to look at the bigger picture of preventative health. Since the seventies we have been talking about preventative health and yet I see very little effort directed to doing something about it.

The bill moves very slightly in that direction, but we have to recognize that as the baby boomer bubble hits our health care system we have to do more than just add funds to the system and stop the crisis management of health as Canadians end up in our emergency wards or clinics. To start with, we have to look at preventing them from becoming ill. That is something we have to look at in a bigger scheme. To do that we must recognize how smoking impacts our health care system. We have to realize that $3 billion is spent in direct costs for hospitalization and physician time in regard to smoking, and another $8 billion is spent in lost productivity in the workplace. Those are amazing figures.

Labour Canada estimates that it costs between $2,300 and $2,600 more to employ an individual who is a smoker. The rate of absenteeism in the workplace has increased because of it. Life insurance premiums have also gone up. Not only is there a productivity cost due to smoking, but there are other direct costs. These are the things we do not really recognize.

We have to get to the teenaged mind. Teenagers need to understand that not only is it costly to smoke and not only does it stink, and in more ways than one, but there is very little upside to smoking and to becoming addicted to something that will harness them to an addiction they cannot escape. I have talked to a lot of people who smoke. Very few of them want to smoke. Most of them want to quit, for many reasons.

Yesterday I had five individuals in my office. One of them was the president of the Canadian Dental Association. I have never thought about cigarettes and their effect on dentistry. These people came to my office to talk about cigarettes and what they see as they look into the mouths of Canadians. What they see is that baby boomers keep more of their teeth as a result of accomplishments in the dentistry field. However, they are suffering from far more cancers because of their cigarette smoking. Dentists are very concerned with the amount of gum disease and cancers of the mouth that they see brought on because of cigarettes.

I want to impress upon the House how important it is that we look at funding a plan to address teenage smoking. Just raising the cost of cigarettes is not the issue. If we took the money raised and put it into such a plan, Canadians would support it much more.

Here is what amazes me and why I ask the House to implement such a plan. The bill was introduced once before. Now it takes 40 pages to introduce the legislation and 50 pages to explain why. I am a little suspicious. It was introduced in 1998 by the Senate and supported at that time by the health minister. Unfortunately the Speaker of the House did not support it because he felt it was a taxation issue, not a health issue. Obviously this is a health issue and not a taxation issue.

It is a little suspicious to see the turnabout in the minds of the members next to me in the House, because they have to address this as a health issue. I am a little suspicious about how fast this is happening and about what kind of energy is behind it. If we do not address it as just one piece of a very large puzzle, then we will have missed our opportunity.

The House needs to examine it as not just a taxation issue but a health issue, one that has to be addressed in our country. We cannot fail in this one. We owe it to our teenagers and to the next generation. We owe it to them to sustain our health care system.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Shall I see the clock as reading 1.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

moved that Bill C-305, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (inventory of brownfields), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, in the short time that I have to defend my bill, Bill C-305, I will try to address four key areas: a definition, an explanation, the need for and approaches to remediation, and the reasons why this legislation should be deemed votable.

What is a brownfield? According to the 1998 report by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, entitled “State of the Debate on the Environment and the Economy: Greening Canada's Brownfield Sites”, brownfields are defined as:

—abandoned or underused properties where past actions have caused real or suspected environmental contamination. Although they are classified as a subset of contaminated sites, these sites exhibit good potential for other uses and usually provide economically viable business opportunities. They are mainly located in established urban areas, where existing municipal services are readily available, or along transportation corridors. They may include, but are not limited to: decommissioned refineries, railway yards, dilapidated warehouses, abandoned gas stations, former dry cleaners and other commercial properties where toxic substances have been stored or used.

I am only guessing but I dare say each and every one of us in the House of Commons has a brownfield site or two in our ridings. Redevelopment of brownfields is often paralyzed due to a variety of reasons, including uncertainty regarding liability and ownership, and provincial and federal liens. Since brownfields are normally located within urban areas, municipalities are the main drivers of brownfield development.

The concept of brownfields is in contrast to that of greenfields, that is, low cost virgin land on the urban fringe which is often more attractive for industrial or commercial relocation or expansion.

Why do we need to remediate and what are the approaches to remediation? The advantages to the remediation of brownfields are obvious: job growth, the revitalization of our downtown cores and the reversal of urban sprawl, as well as the cleanup of potentially environmentally hazardous sites right in our own backyards.

What we are seeing in many cities today is the growth of the urban doughnut, where the city expands ever outward while the once vital core becomes nothing but a hole.

I do not need a police study to convince anyone in this place of the high crime rates in brownfield areas. They can be dangerous places, not only for environmental reasons but also because of the threat to personal safety. Vacant lots and abandoned sites become lairs for drug users and violent criminals. Perfectly good commercial and residential land which just happens to be nearby such an area drops in value because of its proximity to the abandoned sites. In short, these sites are dangerous, ugly and wasteful.

As we begin this new millennium, we need to adopt the new virtues of reduce, reuse and recycle in ways that are more than just putting newspapers and pop cans in the blue box. The three Rs hold a lesson for city development as well. All of our cities and towns are stuck in the wasteful habit of growing outward and ignoring their cores. This trend cannot continue.

By encouraging brownfield remediation and reclamation, cities and towns can capitalize on infrastructure already in place, such as roads, sewers, et cetera. The strain on public transit systems will be eased by putting people to work in town rather than in newly developed areas. Increased construction, commerce and real estate transactions will return to where they were, to where they are most needed, to downtown.

In Toronto in April 1998, an international symposium was held, entitled “Redeveloping Brownfields: A Different Conversation”. I would like to pass on to my colleagues the findings of the executive summary of that comprehensive symposium. Ten recommendations were made.

First, there is no single generic approach. Best practices for brownfield redevelopment are not so much a list of directions or a prescription as much as a new way of thinking. The best redevelopment approach is closely related to a site's competitive advantage, its marketability, the intended use and location. The key is to integrate site restoration and the land redevelopment process in a way that fosters reinvestment.

Second, a project is nothing without a vision. It is important to be able to imagine and articulate the possibilities, to describe what others cannot yet see, because brownfield redevelopment is about protecting and revitalizing the very heart of our communities.

Third, integration makes it happen. Planning, design and environmental issues should be addressed together in an integrated, transparent process.

Fourth, a decisive set of players is needed. Project teams must have diverse skills and experience. In addition, brownfield redevelopments benefit from collaboration among players, regulators, citizens, investors, bankers, technical experts and other members of the design team. Getting the right players involved at the right time saves money and effort.

Fifth, every brownfield project requires partnerships to make it work. Those partnerships can result in consensus about the next use and site design as well as innovative financing strategies, formal agreements regarding cleanup and monitoring, and ongoing communication and community development initiatives.

Sixth, local government and its citizens know best what is needed to spark reinvestment in brownfields. The local spark may come from the public sector, such as a city department, agency or politician, or the non-profit sector such as, for example, the local economic or community development corporation. Improving the investment climate by clarifying and streamlining the decision process and articulating the community vision are two areas where local government can play a key role.

Seventh, risk based decision making is about managing change, ensuring that environmental and human health are protected in cost effective ways and making sound economic investments.

Eighth, broadening the scope of the decision leads to better understanding and better decisions. Effective communication should be seen as a priority task for all members of the project team.

The ninth point is best viewed as a shared responsibility of private and public sectors. When we speak of education around the issue of brownfields the decision has traditionally been focused on public education. The question of education and learning must be more comprehensive and should include all stakeholders, such as risk assessors, lenders, landowners, purchasers and developers.

Finally, the last point is that many successes have resulted from upfront public sector investment in environmental restoration, infrastructure improvements and job creation. Setting a new standard for design and land use can go a long way to improve the investment climate.

I would ask that members present consider these recommendations as they listen to the details of my proposed legislation and evaluate it accordingly. I have endeavoured to take these recommendations to heart in my consideration of the problem of brownfield remediation and I believe that this bill, Bill C-305, is an effective first step toward this goal.

In summary, the bill would amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to expand an existing registry that is already there. Any member of the public can report suspected contaminated sites with the express purpose of building an easily accessible national registry of brownfields. The registry would accept voluntary reports of contaminated lands according to regulations which would determine how much evidence of contamination is required.

The bill would also allow the federal government, together with provincial, municipal and private partners, to assist with the often prohibitive costs of environmental assessments.

To solve a problem, we first need to identify the problem. Ultimately I see this as a three stage process: identification, assessment and remediation. The bill addresses the first two stages directly. First, we identify the extent of brownfields right across the country and once we know where these sites are we can begin to assess the costs of the cleanup. Having this information open and available to all levels of government and private enterprise would foster co-operative and innovative solutions.

The bill is a small but crucial step toward reclaiming these commercially useful sites, revitalizing our city centres and combating urban sprawl. The existing public registry system, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, was set up to facilitate public awareness to ensure convenient public access to records on projects requiring environmental assessments.

One of the impediments to brownfield remediation is the reluctance to report a site due to the expense involved with the assessment. By expanding the registry to include not only projects requiring an environmental assessment, in other words sites already in the process of remediation, but also suspected sites, the public will have access to information about sites that are lying dormant. This is the key difference between the existing legislation and the changes I am proposing in Bill C-305.

At the moment there is little or no concerted effort by the federal or provincial governments to address the issue of contaminated property that is cheaper and legally safer for the owner to ignore and let lie fallow rather than clean it up or sell it to someone who will.

Another aspect of the legislation would permit the federal government to fund projects before the environmental assessment is completed, in other words to pay for the assessment. Bill C-305 would exempt projects from one component of the environmental assessment process. No assessment would be required before the federal government provides any funding but only as long as the funds are used to pay for the actual assessment.

As I mentioned before, one of the impediments to remediation is the prohibitive cost of environmental assessments. What I propose is that the federal government be allowed, be allowed I say especially to the Bloc who I know has a concern about jurisdiction, not obligated, to fund the assessment possibly in co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments and private partners.

Why should the legislation be deemed votable? I believe that my bill meets the five criteria which the standing committee responsible for private members' business has set out: First, the bill is clear, complete and effective; second, the bill is constitutional and concerns only an area of federal jurisdiction; third, the bill concerns a matter of significant public interest; fourth, the bill concerns an issue that is not part of the current legislative agenda and has not been addressed by the House; and fifth, the bill is not of a purely local interest and certainly is non-partisan.

By virtue of its voluntary nature, the registry would not encroach upon provincial jurisdiction. What the registry would do is collect and share voluntarily submitted information, thereby fostering intergovernmental and private co-operation.

There are no punitive measures associated with being on the list. In fact, it would be in the interest of a brownfield site owner to be on the list, as it would open up opportunities for remediation.

The issue of brownfields remediation is a matter of highly significant public interest. This is a problem of enormous magnitude which is long overdue for some kind of a solution. According to the redeveloping brownfields symposium, it is estimated that there are 2,900 such sites in Canada with an estimated cost of $3 billion.

Permit me to read from a part of the report from the symposium. It states:

By far, the overriding success stories in the United States Brownfields program have turned on the ability of the parties to engage all appropriate decision makers and for all decision makers to have a common goal of redevelopment using flexible decision making authority. The cooperative approach, very consistent with the Canadian style of regulation, will be the key to the success of redevelopment in any jurisdiction.

My proposed legislation, without overstepping federal jurisdiction, can do just that, by initiating a co-operative movement between all levels of government and the private sector.

I conclude by re-emphasizing my earlier statements. To solve a problem we must first identify the problem. Ultimately, I see this as a three stage process: identification, assessment, remediation. The bill addresses the first two stages directly. First, we identify the extent of brownfields right across the country. Once we know where these sites are, we can begin to assess the costs of the clean-up.

Having the information open and available to all levels of government and private enterprise will foster co-operative and innovative solutions.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I rise with pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-305, which proposes to establish a national registry of contaminated sites through amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

First, I commend the hon. member for Hamilton West on his ultimate goal to rejuvenate contaminated sites. I share his goal. I have a number of contaminated or brownfield sites in my riding of Etobicoke North. In 1999 I worked with a graduate student from the University of Toronto who developed a report entitled “Rexdale Brownfield Sites: A Framework for Understanding”. It dealt with a number of policy issues and alternatives. I submitted the report to city councillors, the provincial government, the Minister of the Environment and other stakeholder groups.

Ensuring that Canadians have a clean and healthy environment is an important goal for our government. For example, the recent Speech from the Throne notes that for Canadians, protecting the environment is not an option. It is something we must do.

In his reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister stated that a safe, healthy environment is essential to the health of Canadians and to the future of our children. We will accelerate our efforts at home and internationally to foster a clean environment.

These contaminated sites or brownfields are a legacy of poor environmental practices in the past. Because of this terrible legacy we have shifted our thinking and our efforts toward preventing environmental damage before it occurs.

Our government strengthened the Canadian Environmental Protection Act so that it focused on pollution prevention. The Minister of the Environment recently introduced Bill C-19 to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act so that future development projects do not cause environmental harm. In this context, it is necessary to look at Bill C-305 to determine if it would help us better achieve our environmental goals.

The bill proposes to do two things. First, it suggests that the current registry system in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be altered so that any individual could report and therefore register contaminated sites in municipalities.

Second, Bill C-305 would enable the federal government to provide financial assistance for the environmental assessment of projects to remediate contaminated lands.

I would like to bring the House up to date on recent developments relevant to the hon. member's proposal.

The Minister of the Environment just completed an exhaustive and comprehensive review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This review included the release of a discussion paper in December 1999 with options for improving the current law.

The public consultation phase of this review comprised 38 sessions in 19 cities across Canada. One day workshops were held in six major centres. The Internet was put to good use as a means to distribute information and solicit the views of Canadians. Over 200 written submissions were received. All told, the Minister of the Environment heard from a broad cross section of Canadians: environmental assessment practitioners, provincial governments, industry, environmental groups, communities, aboriginal people and individual Canadians.

One of the findings of the review was that the goal of facilitating public participation in environmental assessment has not been fully achieved. In particular, the current system of establishing a separate paper based registry for projects that undergo an environmental assessment has not worked.

I note that Bill C-305 is based on the same registry system concept.

On March 20 the Minister of the Environment tabled his report to parliament on the outcome of his review, entitled Strengthening Environmental Assessment for Canadians, and Bill C-19 proposes specific Amendments for Improving the current act.

Bill C-19 proposes to create a new Internet based government-wide registry of information about the environmental assessment of specific projects. As a result, Canadians will have easy access to information about projects in their communities and across the country.

Because it is based on the current act, the proposal in Bill C-305 does not really mesh with the amendments in Bill C-19, the amendments that require the establishment of a new modern registry that takes advantage of the Internet.

Moreover, the proposal in Bill C-305 would mix the objective of ensuring that Canadians have access to information about the wide range of projects that undergo a federal environmental assessment, such as proposed mines, dams, roads and pipelines, with the important task of identifying and registering contaminated sites.

For those reasons, Bill C-305 would not help us better achieve our environmental goals.

The second related point I would like to make is that the discretionary authority to provide financial assistance for the environmental assessment of projects to remediate contaminated sites, as proposed in Bill C-305, is not necessary.

In fact, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act already goes much further by requiring environmental assessments of remediation projects where there is federal involvement as a proponent, as a provider of financial assistance or land, or as a regulator. For example, remediation projects with federal financial assistance have triggered requirements for an assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We must also be mindful of provincial jurisdiction. Many of the contaminated sites that are the target of Bill C-305 would fall within provincial areas of responsibility.

This does not mean that the federal government does not work with its provincial partners on this issue. Quite the opposite. Through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Environment Canada has provided the scientific expertise necessary for the development of a national classification system for contaminated sites, as well as a comprehensive set of guidance manuals promoting the consistent assessment and remediation of contaminated sites across Canada.

The Government of Canada is also taking measures to get its own House in order.

With over 25,000 owned and leased properties, it is essential that we identify and clean up contaminated sites in our control. Work is under way in this regard. Under the federal contaminated sites and solid waste landfills inventory policy a database of federal sites is being compiled. The database will soon be accessible to Canadians through the Internet.

In their sustainable development strategies tabled in February departments with large land holdings such as National Defence, Transport Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada committed to continue with the identification, assessment and remediation of their contaminated sites.

Environment Canada also continues to be a global leader in the development of technologies to clean up contaminated sites.

For example, field experiments near Trail, British Columbia, and Île-aux-Corbeaux in the St. Lawrence River have demonstrated how certain plants can successfully remove toxic substances from soil, sediment and ground and surface water.

Sunflowers, ragweed, cabbage, geranium and Jack pine show considerable promise. Further field trials are being conducted on this innovative method for removing contamination from our lands and water.

In closing, Bill C-305 is a very forwarding looking and thoughtful project, but in the view of the government it is not appropriate because of more wide ranging proposals in Bill C-19 which will significantly strengthen the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Bill C-19 will help safeguard our environment through an environmental assessment process that is more predictable, certain and timely. Bill C-19 will improve the quality of assessments through measures to improve compliance and ensure more follow up. Bill C-19 will increase opportunities for Canadians to have a meaningful say about projects in their communities.

I applaud the hon. member for Hamilton West. I encourage him to keep his initiative alive and to keep a light on this issue. In light of the efforts of the government on many fronts to deal with contaminated sites, Bill C-305 is not necessary at this time.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Hamilton West. The reason the bill came about is that his own government has not acted upon cleaning up these sites. That is why the man has done it. Had it already been done, the bill would not have seen the light of day.

I compliment the gentleman from Hamilton West on his foresight in trying to move this issue forward. Unfortunately Bill C-19 was dropped from the legislative calendar. Maybe it will come forward in September; maybe it will not. The government will do what it usually does, which is to sit on its hands, in particular on environmental issues.

We live in an extraordinarily beautiful country. What the public may be interested to know is that despite the beauty around us, it is only a shell. Underneath we have a government that is known worldwide as a serious polluter, one that ignores its own rules and regulations domestically and internationally, one that willfully pollutes, one that does this through the actions of government and does not regulate properly the actions of the private sector.

The member for Hamilton West has put forth an articulate, simple plan suggesting that what the government should do is say yes, this is a good idea. It is a good idea to identify these brownfield sites. It is a good idea to put forth a plan of action. It is an even better idea to implement solutions to change the sites that have been contaminated. The public wants that and most members in the House want that. Why does the government not act?

It has been quite unfathomable to us on this side why the government has failed to act on so many issues of environmental importance. Let us talk about some solutions that stem from Bill C-305, things that we can certainly support as a House.

First is the assessment phase. The public would be fascinated to know that today most environmental assessments are done after projects are completed. Does that make sense? It violates the government's own policies. It violates the government's 1995 red book which said it wanted all environmental assessments to happen at the early stages of plans and programs.

A 1998 survey by the environmental agency revealed very clearly that only 20% of screenings occur at a conceptual stage and that 40% of environmental assessments occur late in the project or after the project is complete. What is the benefit of that? It makes no difference doing it at the end.

For example, some huge energy projects have been proposed under NAFTA which could benefit people. Unfortunately most of the oil will go to the United States and no assessment has been done on the far ranging energy projects that will extract oil from tar. It is a good idea, but it should be done under the guise of sound environmental policies.

It is also essential that consideration be given to the need for alternatives in every project. Why do we go through a project and not consider other alternatives, ones that would be better? This can happen.

Sustainable development is the goal. We should have a list of credible indicators of sustainable development such as no net loss to habitat, ensuring renewable resources are used at sustainable levels, and no net increase in air or water pollution. There needs to be a duly elected duty on the part of the government to do just that. There also needs to be a follow up process.

There are the transboundary responsibilities that fall clearly upon the shoulders of the federal government. It is up to the government to ensure that projects which take place across boundaries, affecting not only our country but others, adhere to sound domestic and international environmental standards.

There has been hypocrisy in our actions outside Canada. The public would be fascinated to know that Canada's own Export Development Corporation is using public money to fund development projects abroad which pollute rivers from Borneo to Central America, which dump mine tailings into rivers and into the ground and which clear-cut. These projects are funded by Canadian taxpayer dollars and are being carried out by Canadian companies from Borneo to New Guinea to Central and South America.

They are violating not only the basic norms of international environmental standards, but they are also violating our own laws and the environmental standards set up by the Export Development Corporation. Why is Canada known through the EDC as a pillager of the environment? Why does the government, after being here since 1993, not have a handle on this? It happens far away, thousands of miles away, unseen and unheard by the Canadian public.

Would the public also be interested to know that the cultures of indigenous peoples are being laid to waste by these actions, that they have been turfed out and that they have been marginalized, all to allow Canadian companies to go in and pillage in an irresponsible fashion areas that have been pristine for a long period of time?

The environmental commissioner has said time and time again that the Canadian government has failed miserably, not only in the actions it takes as a government but its actions as a polluter. Standards were set and targets were set, but no assessment or action has been taken to deal with pollution by the Canadian government through its actions.

The environmental commissioner puts out an eloquent report every year or so which contains effective, concise and doable solutions to deal with environmental challenges in Canada. What happens to that report? That report gets tossed on a shelf like the myriad of reports out of the House.

Even the youth in the gallery are crying and lamenting over the terrible situation in our country. Just mere words are causing them to shake and cry with despair. Let us imagine what the public is doing out there. It is very true.

We are asking the government to listen to the environment commissioner and to implement and adhere to the rules set out by that commissioner. The government should also adhere to the principles that we wave like a flag in our own country but fail to adhere to.

It is unthinkable for us not to do that. Part of the reason, I think, is that there has been a death of innovation within this House. It seems that innovation within the House of Commons is wilfully crushed on the altar of this game that we play where we bash each other over the head about issues the public does not care about.

That is in part why the hon. member for Hamilton West is having his bill defeated by his own government. The man is trying to put forth something intelligent and meaningful, something that Canadians from coast to coast are interested in and that will help our environment and help their livelihoods. Yet it is being defeated, all in order to deal with this at a later time. If I had a dime for every time I have heard that we will do this later, I would be a very affluent man.

We also need transparency and public participation in all we do. That is not taking place.

In short, this bill is an original and worthwhile addition to the CEAA. It is built on a win-win situation, environmental cleanup, revitalization of downtown cores and job creation, all in a meaningful way. It could also—and should, if the government were wise—talk about the polluter pay principle, the principle that if a company goes into an area in our country or outside it and wilfully extracts resources or does some development, it is the company's responsibility to clean up the area. That is the principle that exists.

The problem is that there is no enforcement. The government turns a blind eye and says that it is not going to actually look at what that company has done. Rather, it says that it is just going to leave it there and the people who live in the area can pay the price for it, and indeed they do pay a price.

We can look at the people who live around the Sydney tar ponds, who pay a terrible price in terms of birth defects and in terms of levels of cancer we do not find in other parts of the country. We can look at the price paid by the flora and fauna of our country. We can look at the beluga whales that live in the St. Lawrence. The flesh of a beluga whale would be considered a toxic substance because of the high levels of cancer causing agents it contains.

In closing, I compliment the member and ask today for unanimous consent for the bill to go to committee for study.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pity that we have to deal with this issue today at this hour, at the end of the week. It takes a truly superb speaker to make the House crackle with excitement, even though the issue we are dealing with is extremely interesting.

Environmental issues have always been one of my concerns, but this is especially the case since I became a politician. I learned the ropes of political life in Quebec's National Assembly. At the time, in 1976, when Mr. Lévesque came to power in Quebec, there was no Department of the Environment.

The first environment minister was Marcel Léger. Not long after that, I became his assistant in environmental matters. Therefore, there are a few issues that are of concern to me and that I know better than others. Among them, of course, are issues related to environment.

The legislation introduced by the hon. member at least has the merit of bringing us to talk about the environment. In my opinion, we do not deal with it often enough. This is an area that should be a major concern for the population, because if we do not ensure that the environment is protected and if we do not make more efforts in this regard in the future, future generations will surely lay the blame at our feet.

We only have to think of greenhouse gases, for example, which are warming up our planet. The hon. member who spoke before me talked about pollution in the St. Lawrence River.

We realize it is high time governments did the right thing and tried to restore the environment, and not only try to restore it, but also ensure we no longer pollute it.

There is one aspect of the bill I disagree with; once again, we have here a bill which encroaches on provincial areas of jurisdiction.

In the area of the environment, Quebec has come a long way since 1975-76. I can tell the House that contaminated sites are now being reviewed. We have what it takes to do it. We have the necessary legislation and the BAPE does an excellent job.

The bill is flawed in the sense that once again there is overlapping. This slows down progress not only with regard to restoring the environment but also to protecting it.

In an area such as this one, it is important that each level of government stick to its own jurisdiction and act without delay to restore—studying is not enough—sites that unfortunately were allowed to be polluted. The areas of jurisdiction are very clear. We do not need new legislation for that.

I had the opportunity to talk about Lake Saint-Pierre, among others. Lake Saint-Pierre was polluted by the Canadian Forces. They fired shells into it. The consequences have been obvious since the 1950s. There were serious accidents as a result of shells being carried away by the ice.

This is clearly a federal jurisdiction. We do not need studies and special legislation and special committees to see how Lake Saint-Pierre must be restored. This lake is a source of vitality, of life for the river. It is the lung that restores polluted water coming from cities such as Montreal.

Lake Saint-Pierre was polluted with bombs. The Canadian Forces polluted it and we are asking the minister responsible to see to its cleanup as quickly as possible. We have been asking this for years. This is clearly a federal jurisdiction and this is not open to dispute. And yet, this is not being done.

This morning I talked about the pollution in Bagotville. This is a serious case of pollution that is spreading and seeping into groundwaters in the town of La Baie. I asked a question this morning on this. What answer did I get? I was told the government is examining the issue, that it is looking at the situation and that it will solve the problem when it arises. However the problem exists and this is clearly a federal jurisdiction. We do not need a private member's bill. We need only the government's goodwill to solve the pollution problem in Bagotville.

Not only have the shores of the St. Lawrence River been ruined but between Trois-Rivières and Quebec City we have lost and are still losing a great portion of land to erosion. Some houses have had to be moved back, because traffic on St. Lawrence River moved a little too rapidly. Again, this is clearly a federal jurisdiction.

In the past we have managed to get some money to restore and protect the shores of the St. Lawrence River but it is far from over. Municipalities like Sainte-Marthe, Champlain, Batiscan and scores of others all the way to Quebec City are asking us to try to get money to do something because the shores of the St. Lawrence River are being eroded. This comes under federal jurisdiction but the federal government is not doing anything.

There is a disaster waiting to happen on the St. Lawrence River. I already talked about this when we discussed the marine transportation bill.

Throughout the world there is an increasing number of accidents involving ships carrying oil or other dangerous substances. Almost every month we hear about ships sinking somewhere and polluting the shores.

Imagine for a moment that a tanker moving oil to or from Montreal had an accident on the St. Lawrence River. Seven million Quebecers would be affected. What are we doing to prevent this from happening? Some will say that it never happened. Well, it did. Fortunately it was not a disaster, but last year a ship broke in two near Sept-Îles. Fortunately, it did not cause any damage. I live by the St. Lawrence River and each year we see spills, not major ones but enough to see oil on the shores.

Through a bill, I suggested that the Canadian government, that is the Minister of Transport who is responsible for that—it is his jurisdiction—should require that every ship entering the St. Lawrence River carrying dangerous products be inspected. It would be a preventive measure. We do not need legislation for that, just the political will to do it. We could certainly prevent disasters. I hope it never happens. Still, every year we are concerned about that.

Oil shippers seem to use older tankers. When a ship breaks in two, it is often said that the ship was not inspected properly, that is was too old. These same ships go up the St. Lawrence River to Quebec City, to Montreal and on to the Great Lakes.

I often see these ships sail by since I live by the river. I pray to God that we not have a disaster like they had last year in France. We hear about this sort of thing happening all the time all over the place.

This is something that could be done immediately to cleanup and protect our water. I am talking about Lake Saint-Pierre and about inspecting ships carrying dangerous products on the St. Lawrence River. When we talk about the army or the air force contaminating the water table, as they did in Bagotville and Shannon, the minister says “There is no problem. The people are satisfied; we give them bottled water”. Yes, the water table is useless now but the consolation prize is that “From now on, you will be drinking bottled water”. Or better yet, we are told that the water table will clean itself up.

I want to thank the member who introduced the bill for raising the issue today. Although I just have to support the purpose of the bill, I still think that the member should introduce a bill asking the federal government to respect the jurisdictions in this area, to get involved in the restoration of the shores of the St. Lawrence River and all contaminated sites and to respect and support the work of the BAPE in Quebec.

Since my time is running out, I hope I will be able to come back to this very important issue in the near future.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as is the tradition, I have been given five minutes to clean up after the presentation of the bill after an hour in the House.

I listened very carefully to all the interventions made in the House today. To my friend in the Bloc, I am still trying to figure out what a ship going up and down the St. Lawrence has to do with brownfields but I take his points.

My friend with the Canadian Alliance Party indicated or assumed that the government was not doing its job on the environment. Through my experience from 1988 to 1993 in opposition, the Conservative government of the day did precious little on environmental concerns compared to what this federal Liberal government has done since 1993 to the present date. It is quite extraordinary and outstanding what has been done on issues of the environment under a series of different environmental ministers.

My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, will probably not leave his seat and allow me another opportunity to ask for unanimous consent to move this bill along for more than just an hour. I jest because he is a friend. Quite seriously, to my hon. friend who is standing in as a parliamentary secretary, I know he has to represent the government's point of view and I know he has a job to do. I have done that job myself.

However I would ask him to take back the message to the officials that Bill C-19 does not address the need of cost assessment as outlined in my bill. If we have a project we want to proceed with then we go out and do an assessment. Then we can get funding for the project.

Bill C-305 would amend the act and take it back a step so the opportunity of financing would begin at the assessment stage. Doing that would involve not just federal, provincial or municipal money but also tax money. Also the private sector would be invited to play a role and to network with levels of government to spend the money, make it possible, make it happen and pay for it at first blush.

There was an interesting use of language in the government's rebuttal. The word altered was used as opposed to my words of expanding the existing registry.

As addressed by the government, Bill C-305 says that we fear this paper registry versus the Internet or computer registry, and that a paper registry does not work. What bill is perfect? If we had perfect bills we would not have to spend time in the House debating them, making amendments at committee, taking them to report stage in the House and then making amendments at report stage. No bill is perfect. We would make those adjustments from paper to computer.

By the way, and the hon. member might pass this along to the government, even the new Internet based registry under Bill C-19 would still only list environmental assessment projects, not suspected or presently unreported sites that my particular bill would do. Maybe we will have to make an amendment to Bill C-19 in order to make that possible.

I look forward to the reforms that are being discussed and may take place shortly in the work of the House. However what harm is there in permitting a private member's bill, which takes place in an hour outside of regular government business, to be discussed more and to have a second and third hour of debate in the House? It could be in a stretch that might take six months. Then it could end at a parliamentary committee where the bill would be addressed, amended, clarified or even thrown out if the government, with its majority on committees, saw fit. What harm is there in moving the bill along?

Remember that a private member's bill takes hours upon hours of work to formulate. Then it goes to the legislative process. I thank Debra Bulmer at legislative services because she spent hours looking through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to make the appropriate amendments to respond to what it was I wanted to see in the act vis-à-vis brownfields. I thank her for her hard work.

I ask hon. members, with all the hours that were spent in developing, researching and drawing up the appropriate measures in the bill, to give this private member's bill a shot. There is no harm in it. It can be killed at committee if it has to be killed, and if not at committee at third reading in the House.

In closing I ask one more time, and I may know the answer to this already, that the House give unanimous consent to make the bill votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since the motion was not selected as a votable item, the item is dropped from the order paper.

It being 2.15 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)