Mr. Speaker, my sincere congratulations on fulfilling your role as Speaker this afternoon. I must say decorum and conduct in the House are almost unprecedented.
It is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a most comprehensive piece of legislation with respect to environmental management and development.
It is an extremely complex piece of legislation. It is long. It is over 200 pages and covers a wide variety of subjects from toxic substance and waste management to vehicle emissions and air and water pollution. It has been called everything from an environmental war measures act to a piece of legislation so vast and sweeping that it defies categorization.
I do not wish at this point to go into any great detail on any specific clause. That will be our role in committee. There are a couple of areas of concern to me. First is the issue of pollution prevention. The government has stated that pollution prevention is the cornerstone of the bill. It calls it a national goal, which is fine for me because I believe it is a very laudable intention.
However I am concerned about the consequences of this commitment. Has the government thought it out? The bill gives the minister the authority to require any person or business to develop and submit a pollution prevention plan. How much will it cost? How detailed will it have to be? Will it be the same for small business as for big industry?
What about time? The bill states that the government can tell a business how much time it has to draw up and implement a plan. Will there be any guarantee that business will be given enough time to study the problem and consult the people who will help draw up the plan, or will everything be left merely to the discretion of the minister?
I make reference to a clause found in paragraph 6. It states essentially that lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental damage. Any kind of environmental legislation must be based upon science. At the end of the day it is imperative that we take a very prudent approach to our sustainable management if there is any thought that any kind of environmental initiative or toxin could potentially harm any citizen's health or the environment of the country. The government should be applauded for this very prudent initiative.
This is a different era in terms of political parties in Canada. We can look at the number of parties we have on this side of the House. We talk about the Progressive Conservative Party. We talk about the Reform Party. I make clear that I respect individuals who chose to vote Reform in past years for different reasons. In some situations it was a way to express a desire for better representation for the western provinces. We applaud that.
More often than not, the media and the electorate are looking at areas that actually distinguish political parties. One such area is a prudent approach to science. We believe categorically in the science of climate change. The Reform Party has chosen to ignore the science of climate change because it believes there is some doubt. The primary scientific body on climate change set up by the United Nations said there was a discernible human influence on climate change. This is a case in point for people looking for areas to distinguish the two parties. Ours is a prudent approach to the environment.
My second area of concern is about the enforcement clauses contained in the bill. These are found in part 10 which contains almost 100 clauses of the 356 clauses in the legislation. They cover areas like inspection, search, detention, forfeiture, offences and punishment. In light of the preponderance of enforcement clauses in the bill, almost one in three, I am surprised no mention is made in the preamble of the government's position on the matter of enforcement. To me 100 clauses says that we are determined to do something.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes the bill is important. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada introduced the Environmental Protection Act in 1988. It was brought forward by the Hon. Jean J. Charest.
We think that protection of the environment is important, but recent reports of the auditor general and the environment commissioner have raised doubts about this. Not only do they take issue with this government's ability to manage the environment properly but, more fundamentally, they seriously question its very commitment to protect Canada's environment and its ability to enforce environmental legislation.
In January of this year the federal, provincial and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec, signed an environmental harmonization accord. This accord, like much of what this government attempts to do in the environment field, has been the target of much criticism. People are asking why it contains no provision guaranteeing environmental enforcement. They are upset that the federal government is offloading its responsibilities to the provinces, particularly in the areas of environmental inspection, assessment and standard setting.
One of the other criticisms they have on the harmonization accord is the fact that the government actually chose to do inspections of environmental regulations during the first subagreements with the provinces, but not enforcement. So inspections can be done, but violations cannot be enforced. Perhaps the government understands this. However, the environmental community and common sense Canadians understand that enforcement and inspection should have been part of the first set of subagreements.
The government claims that it is not downloading its responsibilities to the provinces. It is simply harmonizing environmental programs and policies. It is making sure if one level of government is fulfilling a task competently that another level will not come in and begin doing the same job. That is the intention of harmonization and that would be a good thing. However, according to the information on the accord I obtained from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's website, it is clear the government is devolving power to the provinces.
Looking at the objectives of the accord, they include using what the government calls a co-operative approach. Under the principles of the accord we see that decisions pursuant to the accord will be consensus based. In the part entitled “Subagreements”, No. 8 states specifically that in areas where governments have been unable to reach a consensus on a Canada-wide approach, each government is free to act within its existing authority and will advise the other governments accordingly.
Co-operative approach and consensus approach are words that mean only one thing. The federal government is getting out of the environment business. It is abandoning its role as a setter and a guarantor of national standards.
The government's haste to relinquish power and responsibility to the provinces over environmental matters is going to have a direct consequence on environmental enforcement. This much is certain. Regional disparities or the so-called patchwork effect are going to become the rule rather than the exception. The environment is a shared jurisdiction and we know that shared jurisdictions lead to unequal application of laws and regulations.
I would refer to a question that I asked on March 19 in the House during question period with respect to this very issue. I believe it would be very important for us to revisit the question at this time. Essentially, I pointed out to the minister that when it comes to enforcement in the province of New Brunswick there is only one enforcement officer for a province of 750,000 persons. There is only one enforcement officer for an economy that is resource based, with industries such as pulp and paper and other heavy industry. I believe it would be more prudent to have better investigations.
It is not just New Brunswick. In the province of Ontario one of the minister's officials stated in committee on February 26 that if there are not the resources for a CEPA regulation that needs to be investigated, then it basically sits in a file until an investigator is freed up. If an investigator is not freed up over a period of a year or two years, then a file is simply closed. That is shameful. Canadians want to know how many environmental regulations which are violated end up in a file that simply gets closed.
The environment is a shared jurisdiction. It is known that shared jurisdictions lead to the unequal application of laws or regulations. This is especially true when there are no national benchmarks and no single points of authority.
In this country each province and territory has its own political culture, its own employment needs and its own set of relationships with business and industry. Each applies and enforces laws and regulations according to their needs. Lacking in overall authority, namely the federal government, it is clear that the chances of CEPA being enforced with any rigour or consistency are remote. They get even more remote when we consider how little money and resources are being allotted to enforcement.
With 100 clauses the government is making a major commitment to enforcing CEPA. Yet as the draft report of the environment committee points out, at the same time the government is failing to provide the department most responsible for enforcement the necessary wherewithal to accomplish its task.
When this government came to office, Environment Canada's budget was approximately $750 million and it employed nearly 6,000 persons. Today the department's budget has been reduced to a touch over $500 million and the number of employees has shrunk to a little more than 4,000; a 33% cut on environmental management. That is the record of this government.
Obviously these reductions have not been without consequences on the department's ability to enforce CEPA properly. Last summer, in fact, things got so bad that the director of the department's enforcement branch admitted publicly that it was considering asking the RCMP to help track polluters. The Mounties would be going after polluters.
Just last week we learned that this same branch plans to cut more staff, meaning that Environment Canada will be dedicating the grand total of approximately 1% of its staff to enforcement. This is a bizarre situation.
If we really think of it, one in three or 33% of this bill's clauses deals with enforcement. Yet out of a total budget of $500 million, a mere $16 million is allocated to enforcement. These are hardly the types of figures a government claiming to be committed to protecting the environment and enforcing CEPA's rules can accept. If it can, Environment Canada cannot realistically be expected to play anything but a minor role in the enforcement of environmental regulations in this country from now on. This means that by default the task in enforcing CEPA will fall to the provinces.
These statistics are very sobering; indeed, alarming. We are going to ask the provinces to actually carry the enforcement ball even more so. Let us look at what the provinces are doing these days with respect to environmental management.
In New Brunswick annual spending on enforcement, planning and so forth has dropped from $17 million in 1991-92 to a mere $12 million today. In Newfoundland the environmental department has had to absorb a 60% cut in its budget since 1994-95.
These statistics are indeed sobering. They also point out that the environment is not a priority of this government any more. It does not take a nuclear physicist to judge the impact that these continued and sustained cuts to environmental budgets are having on the ability and the will of different environmental departments to enforce regulations. Governments simply cannot continue cutting budgets and staff while maintaining, in some cases increasing, the mandate of their environment departments.
I would like to point one thing out. I am what I consider to be a devout fiscal conservative. I think it is very important for governments to live within their means. We need to ensure that we have very strong debt reduction targets so that there is an actual investment in our future and we do not continue to mortgage the future of younger generations.
High debt levels actually affect our country's competitiveness to be able to compete. Why? It is because taxes actually impede our ability to compete, but we can never lower taxes unless we eliminate the pressures that cause high taxes and those pressures are spending.
What we need to do is pay down our debt so we actually pay less money in interest charges on a year to year basis. Then it comes to establishing our priorities. A government that has too many priorities, by definition, does not have any.
What I am pointing out is that the government should be investing in its people and its future. We should allocate our moneys where the citizens of this country want them, in the health care system and in the education system. As well, Canadians want to be assured of a healthy, sound environment in which to live.
My last concern about this bill relates to the proposal to allow anyone over 18 to provoke an investigation of any person or business felt to be contravening the act. This particular clause makes me very uneasy. I am in favour of measures to increase public participation in the environmental process, but we are opening the door to malicious and vexatious investigations by individuals and groups with personal grudges or corporate agendas.
Overall, I am somewhat disappointed with the scope of this bill. This is particularly so in light of the great expectations engendered by the Liberals over the environment issue. In fact, Great Expectations could well be the title of the Liberal environmental policy since 1993.
Members will recall that one-eighth of the first red book was devoted to the environment, thanks to the efforts of one of its authors, the present finance minister, who was then the opposition environment critic. The red book was not the only promise. Since coming to government one environment minister after another has made promise upon promise to do great things for the environment. That is why this bill is so disappointing. It simply does not live up to its billing. It fails to meet the hopes raised through years of unbridled rhetoric.
The question that inevitably comes to mind is: Why, after so much debate and so many promises, has this bill fallen so short of the mark? The first and most obvious reason is that the Liberal Party has lost interest in managing the environment. In its rush to adopt as many of the previous government's policies and positions as it could, there is no longer any room on the policy plate for the environment.
The second reason is that the former environment critic, the current finance minister, has other things on his mind these days than the protection of the environment.
After this government was hit hard by its pre-Kyoto “make it up as we go strategy”, we would have thought that one of the principal actions of the government in the new year, given the minister's comments in January that the cornerstone of its post-Kyoto strategy was rewarding industry for early action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, would have been to put an initiative in the budget for tax incentives for research and development on energy efficiency, for the use of renewable energy sources and for the development of renewable energy sources.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that the Progressive Conservative Party will support Bill C-32 in its current form. We will have to look at in terms of what comes out of committee. It is a more workable bill than Bill C-74 was. It is an extension of what the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was initially set out to be. It is our cornerstone bill of legislation with respect to the environment. It is a bill that the current member for Sherbrooke brought in when he was environment minister between 1990 and 1993.
That gentleman had a very successful record in managing the environment. This House will actually miss his leadership and his commitment to the environment, as well as his commitment to Canadians as he takes on other challenges for our country.
In the time remaining I would like to point out that this government must be challenged over the coming days and weeks to ensure that the environment becomes a priority again.
