John Herron

[Division No. 455, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, during the committee hearings we often saw that the parliamentary secretary was a step behind in some of the amendments throughout the clause by clause process. This actually replicates what we saw on an ongoing basis.

This replies to the issue with respect to the Reform and the government side on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and endocrine disrupters. There has been a bit of debate about what is the accepted definition for these very harmful substances. I would like to point out that had it not been for the due diligence of members like the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for York North, the member for Davenport, the NDP, the Bloc and the Progressive Conservatives, I doubt that there would have been the political pressure for any amendments with respect to endocrine disrupters in this bill.

This is an emerging science. There is no truly accepted international definition. A definition was exposed at the Weybridge conference a number of years ago and which a number of scientists in the international community actually saw. There is a definition in the United States Environmental Protection Act.

Essentially the definition we see here, which was moved by the NDP and was voted on and approved by the Bloc, the Progressive Conservatives and some government members, is a melange of the U.S. EPA and the Weybridge definitions. To use the words of the environment officials, it is indeed a very workable definition.

The Reform Party would have us believe that the Weybridge definition is internationally accepted. It is not. That definition came out of an OECD meeting held in Weybridge, U.K. A melange of the U.S. EPA and the Weybridge definitions is what is in the information gathering section of CEPA. The environment officials consider it to be very workable.

Canada is already a world leader in endocrine disrupters research. The definition we chose to work with should reflect our strength and knowledge of these substances. The NDP motions will add the need for the government to conduct research relating to a safer environment for children by identifying pollutants commonly found in areas accessible to children and identifying the risks in order to advise the public of potential danger. This is a good initiative for the well-being of children.

Children grow at a faster rate than adults do. The ongoing development of their organs makes them especially vulnerable to toxins in our environment. The nervous system in particular can be greatly affected by exposure to some toxins. We need to do more to ensure that they are protected from dangerous contaminants where they live, play and grow.

The metabolic pathways of newborns are not as sophisticated as those found in adults. This means their ability to fight off exposure to toxins in the environment is less than that of adults. They experience greater exposure to toxins than adults do because they consume more water, fruit and vegetables and when resting breathe more air than average adults do. Their tendency to place their dirty hands in their mouths and play on the ground also provides them with a greater risk of exposure to environmental toxins.

Parents, doctors and governments need to be educated on the risks children are being exposed to on a daily basis. This is why we support the motion by my NDP friend and colleague from Churchill River. It is a valuable augmentation to the legislation. I encourage all members of this House to support that amendment.

[Division No. 455, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the amendments in Group No. 6. A few of the amendments were put forward by our Reform colleagues as well as by the member for Churchill River. I would like to highlight these at this time.

In Motion No. 38 Reform is attempting to alter the definition of endocrine disrupters included in the information gathering section of the bill to the Weybridge definition.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I compliment my colleagues in the NDP on their motions which propose to add a definition of endocrine disrupters to the definition section of the bill. These substances are referred to in the information gathering section of the bill but are not in the definition section where it would permit the government to more directly identify harmful substances which are hormone disrupting substances that have very negative implications with respect to human health.

For those individuals who are not that familiar with hormone disrupting substances I would like to share some of my concerns. These substances have the capacity to affect the nervous system or immune system particularly of children yet to be born or in the early years of development.

The world wildlife fund, physician organizations and learning organizations have pointed out that substances such as DDT have hormone disrupting tendencies or capacities which have very negative implications on the development of children, their capacity to learn, their nervous system, their immune system and their hormone system. This NDP amendment is worthy of the support of the House.

I also applaud the efforts of numerous individuals within the committee who have advanced this subject. The original Bill C-32 which came to committee had no reference to hormone disrupting substances.

Through the collaboration of my Conservative colleagues, the member for Jonquière, the NDP environment critic from Churchill, the member for York North, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and others, we were able to turn up the political tinderbox to ensure the information gathering component of the bill.

Canada is already a world leader in terms of studying the hormone disrupting substances on which the bill now has the capacity to gather information. Eventually we will be able to use that research to ensure that we are protecting human health in that regard.

We had a definition that was very similar to the definition in the NDP amendment. Some individuals would have us believe that there is an internationally accepted definition with respect to endocrine disrupting substances. That is not quite true. In fact the NDP definition that was passed under the information gathering section is essentially a melange, a blend of what the U.S. EPA actually approved and the Weybridge definition. Departmental officials with Environment Canada think this is a very workable definition for us to utilize.

Going back to the other definition known as the Weybridge definition, some individuals would advocate it as being the most internationally accepted definition. It is one that many countries have been exposed to, but by no means is there any consensus. The definition we have right now is supported by some environmental NGOs concerned about human health, so that is the definition we should go into as well.

There is another amendment which the Conservative Party will be supporting. Again I am referring to my colleagues in the NDP and their definition with respect to aboriginal peoples which is taken directly from the Constitution. We support that amendment as well.

We are looking at clarifying some definitions with respect to recyclable materials, endocrine disrupting substances and aboriginal people as outlined in the Constitution.

Those are the amendments I wanted to highlight in Group No. 4. Those are the ones we will be supporting. Again I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Churchill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to the amendments in Group No. 3 to Bill C-32, which will amend the the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

As I already mentioned when discussing Group No. 1 amendments, the bill that was sent to committee included clause 2.2 which called for the avoidance of duplication and overlap in legislation and regulation in areas that involved the protection of the environment and human health.

The clause proposed to resolve any potential duplication by having the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the minister responsible for the other act “jointly decide whether measures that can be taken under the other act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter”, and that matter has to be that of human health and the protection of the environment. This clause, however, was removed from the act during the committee stage of review in favour of introducing separate and more specific clauses in appropriate sections of the bill where the potential for overlap and duplication existed.

The new clauses shifted the power to decide which law would prevail to cabinet from the three ministers, except in the case of biotechnology where the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment would take a decision.

The government is trying to make all sections refer to cabinet for this decision making process. Its proposed motion to amend was already defeated in committee in the biotechnology section. In fact, even Reform voted against this particular proposal.

The essence of what we are talking about, as mentioned by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, is that most of these amendments would water down the strength of the bill.

The amendments that we have tabled within this section address the applicable situations. Instead of having all decisions referred to the governor in council, which we know to be cabinet, we are advocating that the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the other applicable minister decide whether measures can be taken under the other act with respect to protecting human health and the environment in addressing the matter at hand.

In this era of political accountability more often than not the folks who live in the ridings want to know who is accountable for the decisions we make. What the Progressive Conservative Party is advocating is to maintain the same intent that we had with respect to clause 2.2.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who has personally helped me out on an individual basis. I know that he works hard in his particular portfolio, but I know he does not spend a lot of time on the environment. Therefore, I am advocating that the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the other applicable minister, whether it be the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food or any other minister, should actually have the capacity to make a decision and be held accountable. If the wrong decision is made, or perhaps the correct decision, those ministers will be the accountable ministers who come into play, as opposed to sending it to cabinet where other concerns may water down the influence with respect to health and the environment.

I am troubled that perhaps in some circumstances there may be some industrial concerns or some agricultural concerns. For the most part, 99.9 times out of 100, ministers want to ensure that we look after human health and the environment as well. However, I am concerned that at times political pressure might water down the influence of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health.

I am particularly concerned that the budget of the Department of the Environment has been cut by well over a third since this government took office in 1993. The weight which the Department of the Environment has in cabinet today versus what it once had during the Jean Charest and the Tom MacMillan era may not be the same in terms of making sure that human health and the environment are protected.

It is also interesting to note that members of the Reform Party in committee supported the change that removed the old section 2.2. They also voted to amend the clause to read as it currently does in the biotech section. They supported amending the clause to read that the Minister of Environment and, where appropriate, the Minister of Health would make a decision. Now they seem to have changed their minds. They propose restoring the section to its original state.

Reform went along with this during the deliberations at committee because they believe in more political accountability, as do many members of parliament. The Progressive Conservative Party does as well. That is why they supported that initiative. They have now reverted to the preference of having it done by the governor in council for other reasons. This is more of a concern of Reform members not wanting to empower the ministers of health and the environment to be accountable and to make that the first priority above all others. I think we owe that to all citizens who live in this country and to future generations as well.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that its proposal would provide the public with an accountability mechanism for the ministers who make the decision as to which act better provides sufficient protection for the environment and human health. We also believe that our amendments provide an appropriate and necessary balance for the decision making process.

That is the issue I want to put forth with respect to the amendments that we have tabled in Group No. 3. It comes down to the issue of, if there is another act that comes into play, we definitely want to avoid duplication. We definitely want to avoid excess regulation. We want to do it in a capacity where health and the environment are the leads and the ministers will consult to ensure that the other minister has a fair say, as opposed to sending it to cabinet where we do not know who makes the decisions, why a decision was made and what matters were actually taken into play.

The bill is co-sponsored by the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment. They should be the quarterbacks. They should be the people who actually lead this omnibus bill, this pioneering bill, to quote the member for Davenport.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the principle legislation that controls the use of toxins within our environment. We should ensure that those two ministers take the lead and consult their teammates, the appropriate ministers. Sending it to cabinet tears apart the political accountability that all citizens of the country want to have from their government.

[Shipbuilding Industry, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the premiers of this country spoke in favour of a new national shipbuilding policy at the conference of first ministers in August 1997, yet this government has refused to address their demands. Today shipyard workers across Canada are calling upon this government to take action. It is only a matter of time before the premiers come knocking on the Prime Minister's door demanding the same.

Why does the Prime Minister not pre-empt the attack of the premiers and after his upcoming cabinet shuffle sit down with his new Minister of Industry and implement the needed tax incentives and loan guarantees to get Canadian shipyard workers back to work?

[The Environment, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me give the Minister of the Environment a little history lesson. When acid rain was taking its toll on Canadian rivers and lakes, we got our own environmental house in order and then took on the American one and delivered this nation an acid rain protocol in 1987.

To advance the mercury file we need the same kind of true leadership and decisive action. Mercury is a known killer, yet Canada presented a divided opinion during recent negotiations for a United Nations heavy metals protocol. Internal squabbling has halted any real action to tackle the problem.

When can Canadians expect to see some leadership or some management from the department on mercury or on any environmental issue?

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

moved:

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 87 with the following:

“Parliament that, in the opinion of the Ministers and the minister responsible for the other Act,”

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

moved:

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended a ) by replacing lines 41 to 45 on page 78 and lines 1 to 4 on page 79 with the following:

“this section, the Ministers and the minister responsible for the other Act referred to in paragraph (6)( a ) are responsible for determining whether or not the requirements referred to in that paragraph are met by that other Act or regulations made under that Act, and ( a ) if the Ministers and that other minister determine that the” b ) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 79 with the following:

“made under that Act, the Ministers and that other minister” c ) by replacing, in the English version, lines 13 and 14 on page 79 with the following: b ) if the Ministers and that other minister determine that the” d ) by replacing, in the English version, lines 18 and 19 on page 79 with the following:

“ule 4, the Ministers and that other minister may by order delete”

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the Group No. 2 amendments to Bill C-32. My comments will not be all that long. I want to talk about the concept that predominates a number of the amendments which have been put forward primarily by the Bloc and by the government.

This section captures the Bloc position that the ministers must get provincial approval before making any regulations or issuing any guidelines throughout the act. The government also has a few amendments in this section but they deal predominately with the offer to consult being open to the provinces for 60 days before the government must act, which would bring closure to the offer.

We do not always get agreement with the provinces to act so the federal government must retain the powers to act in order to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. Essentially that is the origin of it.

I understand where my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is actually coming from. It is that the federal government fails to recognize on a routine basis that in order to get anything implemented within this great country ultimately we need the provinces on side. At the end of the day they are usually the governing body which has to implement a number of the decisions that take place with respect to the federal government.

The concern the Bloc has put forward is indeed justified. I would like to cite two examples of the origin of this concern. We all remember the draconian cuts to the Canada health and social transfer that took place by the federal government to pay for health care, education and social assistance.

These unprecedented cuts to our priority programs were done without any consultation, without any input from the provinces. The provinces did not have the opportunity to say that they would pay a very severe price and, more important, that the citizens who live in the provinces would pay a very severe price if these actions were taken. The provinces did not have any input into the actions of the federal government.

I trust the House remembers the debate which led up to the Kyoto protocol in December 1997. In that situation all 10 provinces met essentially for the first time to coalesce and build a position with respect to what target and timelines they should establish and agree to at the Kyoto protocol.

The provinces stepped forward and gave a unified position on November 12, 1997. The following morning we read in the Globe and Mail that what was agreed to the previous night was not necessarily the position the federal government when it goes to Kyoto. This slapped the provinces square in the face. Then when the government went to Kyoto the final position it adopted was drastically different from what it had agreed to on November 12 in Regina, Saskatchewan.

If Bloc Quebecois members are concerned that the federal government will not consult their provincial partners in making these decisions, if they are paranoid that the federal government will take unilateral positions in this regard, I think that paranoia is justified.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that although the responsibility for the environment is that of federal and provincial jurisdictions, we must make no mistake about it. The federal government needs to take the leadership role in that regard.

The intent in terms of what the Bloc has proposed, and I think the government has come to a reasonable compromise on this point as well, is that the government must offer to consult. It must seek input for the provinces to advise the government in terms of what direction it may want to take in an environmental intervention.

There was a lot of discussion on the part of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I think it is a very prudent situation. The offer to consult was left open for 60 days. The door is wide open for 60 days. Once talks begin that would naturally be continued. If the provinces do not take the federal government up on the offer over a two month period on a major environmental intervention, the federal government has the responsibility to show leadership.

We will not support the Bloc's amendments in that regard only because we think the government has a better direction. The Bloc tabled these amendments and we are discussing them in the House. Whether it is environmental issues or the Canada health and social transfer, the government fails to realize that our country is a partnership, a confederation of all provinces. The provinces have a valuable role in implementing our laws. They deserve to have their rightful place at the table and to give input.

The spirit of the Bloc's amendments are dead-on and justified. However, the government in this circumstance has ensured that it must offer to consult with its provincial partners and keep it open for a period of 60 days. If the provinces do not engage in it ultimately the federal government will have to take the leadership role it rightfully must have.

We will be participating further in the debate as we deal with the other amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point.