Paddy Torsney

[Petitions, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition that requests parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention that will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to direct my comments specifically to this group, I would like to identify that the government amendments in this section are restricted to administrative duties.

Specifically, the government response to the standing committee report on CEPA committed to using the version of the precautionary principle agreed to by Canada and the nations of the world during the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro.

Motion No. 8 by the government seeks to ensure that the statement of the precautionary principle in the administrative duty section is consistent with the Rio version. The government has put precautionary principle into the body of the legislation, strengthening our government's commitment to take precautionary measures and putting the environment and health of Canadians first, even in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Specific to the other motions that are in this group, the Reform motions seek to reverse the standing committee amendments that deleted cost effective elsewhere in the bill. The government would like to see those remain deleted. Furthermore, we are not in support of the Reform Party's motion to restore the residual clause 2(2), which is one of the motions before us.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Group No. 3 amendments deal primarily with biotechnology. As a result of the amendments that were made by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development during the clause by clause process, the preamble now references products of biotechnology.

For greater clarity, government Motion No. 7 retains this reference but places it in a separate statement within the preamble. This provision recognizes the need to protect the environment by providing for the safe and effective use of products of biotechnology.

A couple of other motions focus on avoiding duplication when it comes to biotechnology. Assessment and control of products of biotechnology fall under several laws, including CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Bill C-32 includes provisions to ensure that actions taken under other laws are not duplicated by CEPA. It operates on the principle that other laws must provide sufficient protection for the environment and human health. Government motions to amend the biotechnology part of Bill C-32 are consistent with this approach of using CEPA to ensure the protection of the environment and human health.

With regard to the opposition motions, let me say that all ministers in the government have responsibility for the environment. A key point, however, is that CEPA sets the standard for biotechnology. Other acts must assess for toxicity to determine if new products of biotechnology have the potential to harm the environment or human health. Several pieces of federal legislation govern products of biotechnology and expertise is shared across several departments. As such, it only makes sense to put decision making related to the use of CEPA in the hands of the governor in council.

Ironically, PC motions in this area seek to adopt a decision making model that was deleted by the standing committee because of the concern that it might create unnecessary delays or prevent action. I urge all members of the House to support the motions in Group No. 3 that are government motions and to vote against the PC motions that will come before us sometime next week.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member has a prop. This is contrary to the standing orders of the House of Commons. He has something under his papers.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing the Group No. 2 motions before us I thought that perhaps a little description might help those who are watching.

Most of the Group No. 2 amendments focus on federal-provincial issues. Eleven government motions put in place a 60 day limit for other governments to accept our offer of consultation. Over 40 Bloc Quebecois motions seek to provide a provincial veto against any federal action. Four government motions ensure French-English concurrence and two government motions enable consultation with crown corporations.

With regard to the 60 day limit on the offer to consult, the Government of Canada is committed to working co-operatively with provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments to protect the environment and health of Canadians.

One of the ways in which Bill C-32 will help promote co-operation is through provisions that require an offer to consult to other governments on proposed measures. For legitimate reasons other governments may not always be interested in consulting with the federal government on a proposed measure. In these cases we do not want the requirements to offer to consult to create unnecessary delays.

For this reason the government has introduced amendments that would allow the Minister of the Environment to proceed with a proposed measure if after 60 days other governments have not taken up that offer. This does not limit the amount of time for consultation, only the offer.

With regard to the Bloc Quebecois amendments, they would seek to remove provisions of Bill C-32 to recognize the national dimension of CEPA, the environmental protection act, and the federal government's leadership role in protecting the environment and health of all Canadians.

We know that political borders offer no protection against pollution. We also know that one government acting alone cannot meet today's environmental challenge.

In Canada, history has shown us that environmental success is linked to co-operation among governments, whether it is tackling acid rain or protecting the earth's ozone layer. Bill C-32 recognizes that co-operation is essential. The Bloc Quebecois motions, however, suggest that co-operation is a one-way street. It wants provincial governments to have a veto to prevent federal government action to protect the environment and health of Canadians.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to strip the bill of its power to make defence of the environment a national responsibility.

It wants to strip the bill of its power to promote federal government commitments to provide national leadership in environmental matters.

These Bloc Quebecois motions are out of step with the reality of the environmental challenges that we all face. All governments have a role to play. In its 1997 decision, the supreme court upheld the federal government's jurisdiction to control toxic substances in Canada.

Rightfully, the court pointed out that environmental protection required the involvement of all levels of government. This is what Canadians expect, and what they deserve.

Bill C-32 provides the federal government with new tools to assist it in doing its part to protect the environment. This is legislation that will benefit all Canadians.

[The Environment, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite has demonstrated his commitment to this issue and for that we thank him.

The health of residents remains the first priority of the government. We are very pleased the province has announced that it will relocate residents. We look forward to continuing to work with the local organization that is providing the solutions.

The Government of Canada is committed to helping. There will be resources to do just that when the solutions are in place.

[The Environment, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is unaware of the process that is under way.

There is a joint action group that is identifying the solution. It is a grassroots organization which Environment Canada is supporting with research.

We have jurisdictional issues with the provinces. We certainly support the provincial government's decision announced last night to move families. I would hope members opposite would support that initiative as well.

[Marnie Paikin, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate a great Canadian and a new member of the Order of Canada, Ms. Marnie Paikin.

Blessed with a quick mind and an incredible ability to analyze and synthesize vast quantities of information, Marnie has applied her smarts to numerous social causes and to many successful Canadian businesses.

Marnie has dedicated herself to improving the lives of people in her community. She has worked hard for health and cultural organizations, including the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra.

An avid sports fan, Marnie's love for the CFL, in particular the Hamilton Ti-Cats, is legendary. In the early 1980s I saw my first Blue Jays game with sports commentator extraordinaire, Marnie Paikin.

A former resident of Burlington and a true Hamilton booster, I know that I join Marnie's huge fan club, her many admiring neighbours and her wonderful family in being proud of her accomplishments and wishing her every continued success.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A lot of people have a lot of things to say about the bill and one of the things I would hope is that people would be accurate. The member opposite has just referenced quotes from the Globe and Mail —

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32 and to the many motions that have been put forward within Group No. 1.

As the member opposite has recognized, the motions that we are dealing with today deal with export controls, virtual elimination and focus on toxics. The preamble of Bill C-32, as amended by the standing committee, talks about the phase-out of the generation and use of persistent and biocumulative toxic substances.

Government Motion No. 2 proposes an amendment to make the statement in the preamble consistent with that which is in the bill.

There are also changes on biotechnology and the administrative duties of the bill. As a result of the amendments put forward by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the administrative duties now correctly reference products of biotechnology.

For clarity, government Motion No. 9 retains this reference but places it in a separate clause that recognizes the need to protect the environment by providing for the safe and effective use of biotechnology.

I think all members will agree that the bill in its entirety is focused on making sure that we are producing a win for the environment, a win for the Canadian public and a win for the future health of Canadians. The bill is on the leading edge of environmental protection worldwide. It focuses on pollution prevention, the protection of our environment and the health of all Canadians. It strengthens the environmental protection act, as the member opposite has mentioned, a piece of legislation that came in some five years ago.

One of the key components of the bill is the section on virtual elimination. Virtual elimination means reducing the releases to the environment of a very small number of the most dangerous toxic substances to a level where these releases cannot be measured.

Right now we are talking about 12 substances in Canada that have been found to meet the criteria for virtual elimination. Nine of these substances, one example being DDT, are banned in Canada. Controls are in place or are being developed for the remaining three. There are 23,000 substances in commerce in Canada. It is estimated that over the next number of years 10 or 12 could also be slated for virtual elimination.

Why are we doing this? Even extremely small releases of certain substances to the environment can create problems that are extremely costly or impossible to correct. This is particularly true of substances that are: toxic as defined under the environmental protection act; primarily the result of human activity; persistent, take a long time to break down, if ever; and bioaccumulative, collect in living organisms and end up in the food chain.

A prime example of this is the insecticide DDT, which I mentioned earlier. It was introduced into Canada in the 1940s. It was responsible for causing drastic reductions in many bird populations, especially those at higher levels in the food chain such as gulls, cormorants and bald eagles.

Despite the ban in Canada on all major uses of DDT in the 1970s, today DDT is being detected in the breast milk of Canada's Inuit people. The bill will make sure that we remove these substances from our communities and from the environment in Canada.

The bill is based on the regulatory relief limit that is very precise, the limit that industries will be obliged to meet after this limit is set. That will come after consideration of the health and environment risk to Canadians, of the social and economic situation, and of technical matters. Does the technology exist? Do we need to develop something else?

Sometimes achieving the virtual elimination of these substances will not be immediately feasible. The bill recognizes the need to consider all these matters.

The government amendments to these sections, represented in a whole series of motions, will make it clear that virtual elimination planning and regulatory requirements will be set after consideration of environmental or health risks, as well social, economic and technical matters. This is a common sense approach.

With the special regime for the virtual elimination of the most dangerous and toxic substances, Bill C-32 is on the leading edge.

The member opposite talked about inherent toxicity. To be slated for virtual elimination, a substance must meet the criteria for toxicity in section 64 of the bill. Government Motion No. 88 clarifies ambiguous language in subsection 77(3) to make sure that the only toxic substances are put on the track to virtual elimination. This is consistent with other sections in the bill and the government's commitment to risk-based decision making.

Let us talk about export controls. Government Motion No. 128 is a technical amendment to make it clear that it is both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health who add a substance to the export control list. This is about stewardship. It is about people being responsible within our borders for what they are producing and what they are sending elsewhere.

I would like to talk for a couple of seconds about some of the opposition motions that are before us. The Bloc Quebecois have several motions that would need the agreement of the provinces before we could move ahead with virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances.

Let us be clear. In 1998 the federal government and all the provinces and territories endorsed the national policy for the management of toxic substances. That policy is reflected in the bill.

Bill C-32 is consistent with the policy which calls for the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances. With the new CEPA, the federal government will continue to work closely with its provincial and territorial partners in taking action to deal with toxics.

The New Democratic Party wants to alter the definition of toxic and to abandon the current practice of making decisions based on risk. The government is committed to a risk-based approach when dealing with toxic substances. Basing our decisions on an assessment of risk to the environment and human health is the internationally accepted way of doing things. Abandoning it would produce no environmental benefit and would put Canada out of step with the other nations with whom we work so closely to protect the environment from the threat of toxics.

Both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party want to return the definition of virtual elimination to that which was originally proposed in the bill. The standing committee heard that the definition of virtual elimination that originally existed was confusing and could have been interpreted in conflicting ways. The government amendments corrected this problem. The definition in the bill is clear and credible.

Ultimately, reducing releases of the most dangerous of toxics to the point where they can no longer be measured is our goal for virtual elimination. Striving for anything less would put the environment and the human health of Canadians at unnecessary risk.

Let us talk about the Progressive Conservative amendments. Substantive gains have been made in this piece of legislation. Since there are several pieces of federal legislation that govern new substances and the expertise is shared across several government departments, it is appropriate that the decision making is in the hands of the governor in council.

A key point of the bill, which some people choose to ignore, is that CEPA sets the standard. Other acts must assess for toxicity to determine if the new substance has the potential to harm the environment or human health.

Let us talk about the Reform cross-referencing amendments to delete all mention of virtual elimination outside the definition in section 65. That would make the goal of virtual elimination unattainable. It would leave the definition of the bill without any corresponding operational clauses. We are not prepared to do that. It would be bowing to industry, to the mythology of some of the paranoia that has existed.

Reform amendments to the export control provisions would weaken Canada's ability to control exports of dangerous substances. It would add “for the purposes of implementing international agreements” and the concept is “severely” restricted. These limit the scope of the sections dealing with the export of toxics. It would take away Canada's ability to control exports of potentially dangerous chemicals unless they were covered by an international agreement.

Reform Motion No. 92 would make it impossible for Canada to control exports of CFCs which are responsible for depleting the earth's ozone layer. It would be kowtowing to industry, it would not be a good thing and it would take us to pre-Reform Party, pre-1985.

The bill is about stewardship. It is about pollution prevention. It is a good bill that is important for the health and environment of all Canadians. I urge all members to support it with the amendments we are proposing.