Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

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

moved:

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-32, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 19 to 24 on page 14.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-32, in Clause 10, be amended a ) by replacing lines 41 to 44 on page 14 and lines 1 to 12 on page 15 with the following:

“the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may make an order declaring that the provisions of a regulation made under the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in an area under the jurisdiction of the government where the Minister and the government have entered into an agreement in that respect.” b ) by replacing, in the French version, line 12 on page 15 with the following:

«l'accord prévu au paragraphe» c ) by replacing, in the French version, line 25 on page 15 with the following:

«(7) Une fois l'accord conclu,»

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-32, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 26 with the following:

“44. (1) The Minister shall, with the agreement of the provincial governments concerned,”

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 28 with the following:

“45. The Minister of Health shall, with the agreement of the provincial governments concerned,”

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 28 with the following:

“publish, with the agreement of the provincial governments concerned, in the Canada Gazette and in any other”

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-32, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 30 with the following:

“47. (1) The Minister shall, with the agreement of provincial governments, issue and apply guidelines”

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

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 32 on page 1.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 22 on page 2.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 3 with the following: d ) act in cooperation with”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 3 and 4 on page 4.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 4 with the following: l ) act in keeping with the intent”

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-32, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 11 with the following:

“6. (1) For the purpose of taking cooperative”

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-32, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 4 on page 14 with the following: b ) agree to amendments of the agreement.”

[The Environment, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the report he tabled yesterday, the environment commissioner showed very clearly that, to all intents and purposes, control of toxic substances, including pesticides, was non existent.

The situation has considerable import for public health, and more particularly, the health of children, who are most at risk.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How long do we have to wait before he reacts and proposes powerful means of eliminating toxic substances?

[The Environment, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner, Brian Emmet, this morning tabled a stunning report that concludes the federal government is incapable of implementing its environmental legislation.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How can the minister claim to be defending the environment when 75% of the reductions in the release of toxic substances reported to her are misleading, in the opinion of her own officials?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to speak today. This sadness hangs over the opposition members.

This government's management style is unacceptable. Since my election in 1997, the Bloc Quebecois and all the opposition parties have faced closure on many occasions.

What is closure? This government uses it to muzzle the opposition. Why muzzle the opposition? Because the government is not capable of legislating in a way consistent with the reality of Quebeckers and Canadians.

I come from an extremely proud and a highly industrialized community. There are also many many public service employees in the riding of Jonquière.

There is a tax data centre there. What did they do recently to the Department of National Revenue? They set up another agency. I think they are trying to see how many agencies they can set up. Why is this government doing that? Because they have a whole lot of friends to thank.

I have always been in active politics. Elected the member for Jonquière, I was not expecting to be part of a circus here in the House. What is this government doing? Taking care of all its friends. Why must these people be compensated? Because the government has nothing to give the people. It has to look after its friends first of all.

What is going on right now with Bill C-78 is unacceptable. The government is doing the same thing it did with the EI fund. Too much is not enough, as they say, and so is too little. This government has no common sense.

On weekends I visit my riding. People say to me: “Jocelyne, are you going to tell the government that there is such a thing as common sense? If they do not know what it is, then they should pay us a visit, talk to people in factories. We will show them a thing or two”.

They did not go to the same school as we did. They went to schools that taught them to reward their cronies, their friends.

What is going on is not fair to women, as my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, pointed out. Three quarters of the employees at the taxation data centre in my riding are women. They are constantly coming to see me to complain about how the President of the Treasury Board has insulted them yet again. They are insulted by his unwillingness to recognized pay equity.

Not only does the government not recognize pay equity, but it is dipping into the pension fund. In most cases, these women have sacrificed their health.

For many years now, the government has resorted to cutbacks in the public service in order to reduce the deficit. Where there used to be three or four women doing a job in the taxation centre, now there is only one. The workload has increased. Now the government is actually going to dip into their pension fund, when it is known that most of these women are single parents. They have children under their care. When they retire, they will get a meagre $9,000 pension. It is a joke at their expense.

I do not think there are a lot of government members who know how it is in real life, how much it costs to buy a pound of butter or to buy clothes for children. I will gladly take them shopping to show them the day to day reality of ordinary people.

It is high time workers put the government in its place. They are sick and tired of paying when the government does anything it wants with their money. On top of that, it likes to reward its friends.

I am not proud today. It is May 13. Usually, 13 is my lucky number. Today is not a lucky day for Quebeckers and Canadians, for those people who gave their all to do their job well. They gave their all hoping to have a decent income when they retire.

The government has other ideas. Instead of increasing this decent income, it takes money from these people. Then it says that it is for their own good. Oh, sure.

My parents taught me that a person who takes something from another person must be judged. One of these days, the Liberals will be judged. We will be able to say that we told them not to do that. They will be condemned, and I will be there to applaud.

In closing, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That all government members, since the government has imposed time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage, be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the report stage of Bill C-32, and to have an opportunity to show you just how many shortcomings there are in this bill.

This was my first experience with a clause by clause study of a bill in committee. I must say it was a most disconcerting experience for me, to say the least.

The process was a lengthy one, and introducing and withdrawing hundreds of amendments was very confusing. To top it all off, for a number of clauses, the English and French versions did not correspond. We adopted more than 160 amendments, and no doubt there would have been more if we had not got fed up.

Still today, at the report stage, the hundreds of amendments before us prove without a doubt that this bill needs to be totally reworked, not just changed here and changed there, but totally reworked. Otherwise, we will end up with a bill that lacks rigour, consensus and vision.

Throughout this committee process, I noted this government's flagrant lack of good will. Here we are, stuck with an unfinished bill for the next 10 years. This is not a process that is undertaken every year.

We in the Bloc Quebecois wanted to do this. Here are a few examples to show our good will on this issue.

First, public participation: what a lovely expression. Unfortunately the government is letting cumbersome administrative and legal procedures take precedence over the public's legitimate demand for a healthy environment.

Second, toxic substances: once again, the government is putting off updating the list of toxic substances. It will wait seven years. When will the new substances be analyzed? This is urgent. Why procrastinate?

Third, enforcement: with this bill, the federal government wants to set new rules for the environment. How can it enforce them? Even with the current legislation, it has cut staff drastically. There are fewer inspectors, so there is less enforcement. The government cut the department's budget by several million dollars. It should seek to enforce what is already in force before thinking of extending its power to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Some facts must be pointed out. We will recall that, on December 15, 1995, the Liberal government proposed revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The proposal by the Minister of the Environment at the time was the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “It's About Our Health—Towards Pollution Prevention”.

This response set out the broad lines of a proposal to renew the federal government's main legislative measure on environmental protection, CEPA. This was a promise made in the red book.

The Bloc opposed the report, and made that perfectly clear by tabling a minority report. Most of the recommendations in the majority report supported the centralizing tendency of the federal government in environmental protection matters.

The Bloc Quebecois refutes the theory of the double safety net and contends that the environment would be better served if responsibility for its protection were given to one level of government only.

The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that the provinces, especially Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude significant agreements with national and international partners and have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.

The government introduced Bill C-74, but the bill died on the order paper when the election was called in 1997. After the election, the government introduced a new bill, Bill C-32, born from the ashes of Bill C-74, at first reading on March 12, 1998.

It should be noted that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is required to undergo a review every five years, and that deadline is already past.

Does the renewed Canadian Environmental Protection Act give powers to Quebec and the provinces? Definitely not.

In theory, Bill C-32 recognizes the environment as a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces. Unfortunately, all the rhetoric and pious wishes are not matched with action.

The bill does not delegate any power to Quebec or any of the provinces, which is contrary to what true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government should be.

With Bill C-32, now at report stage, the Liberal government is reinforcing the federal government's supremacy in the area of environmental protection.

This bill opens the door to duplication of federal and provincial powers. To this end, the government even dares to hide behind the latest supreme court ruling on an environmental issue, in P.G. Canada v. Hydro Quebec.

I will now address the four main changes made to the bill at committee stage.

A new definition of virtual elimination is provided at clause 65.(1). It reads:

In this part, “virtual elimination” means, in respect of a toxic substance released into the environment as a result of human activity, the ultimate reduction of the quantity or concentration of the substance in the release below the level of quantification specified by the ministers in the list referred to in subsection (2).

Before we create new definitions devoid of meaning, we must make sure we can achieve the highest standards in the world. By way of example, the harmonization of federal environmental standards with those of European countries, such as Germany, would be a big step in the right direction.

We could see there was a problem of harmonization among the various positions in the bill referring to virtual elimination. The new definition of virtual elimination has not been uniformly applied to all the clauses concerning this issue. Accordingly the Bloc Quebecois is proposing amendments to respond to these inconsistencies in Bill C-32.

The committee eliminated all references to cost-effective measures the government was to take under Bill C-32. The committee based its decision on the fact that the government did not want to explicitly define the word cost effective in the bill.

In the face of this legal void, the committee decided it was simply preferable to eliminate the term, considering that in the context of sustainable development, it is understood that government measures are to be cost effective. On this issue, the Bloc Quebecois' position was the same as that of the committee. We should delete a term that has not been defined in the act.

Hormone disrupting substance means a substance having the ability to disrupt the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action or elimination of natural hormones in an organism, or its progeny, that are responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis, reproduction, development or behaviour of the organism.

The bill now specifies that the federal government shall conduct research or studies relating to hormone disrupting substances for preventive and abatement purposes, to deal with the negative effects of these substances on health.

In this regard, we think the federal government should limit its activities to conducting research and studies in this area. All the other aspects mentioned in the bill should come under the provinces' responsibility.

The greatest concern about Bill C-32 is undoubtedly the issue of harmonization with the provinces. Under the original version of Bill C-32, the federal government was going to act in accordance with the intent of intergovernmental agreements. The Liberal majority softened this requirement by adding the word endeavour before the verb to act.

The Bloc Quebecois maintains that the federal government must always keep in mind the prospect of harmonization with the provinces, to avoid duplication and overlap in the legislation and regulations. By trivializing federal-provincial harmonization agreements, the Liberal government clearly shows that it lacks the will to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces with regard to the environment.

The Bloc Quebecois will table amendments, including one to have the term “endeavour” deleted from the current version of Bill C-32. I hope the government will give us its support.

As for the agreements respecting the administration of the act, clause 9 of the bill provides that the minister “may negotiate with a government with respect to the administration of this act”.

Considering all the issues raised, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill at report stage.

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

moved:

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-32, in Clause 65, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 28 on page 39 with the following:

“below any measurable quantity or concentration that is at or approaching the level of quantification, as defined by the regulations, and that a ) is specified by the Ministers or prescribed; and b ) in the opinion of the Ministers, results or may result in a harmful effect on the environment or human life or health.

(2) For the purposes of implementing the virtual elimination of a substance, any factor or information that, in the opinion of the Ministers, is relevant shall be taken into consideration as provided for in section 91, including, but not limited to, environmental or health risks and any other relevant social, economic or technical matters.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 1 with the following:

“knowledges, with the agreement of the governments of the provinces concerned, the need to phase out the genera-”

[Transportation Of Dangerous Waste, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week, in response to a question I put to him, the Minister of Transport said, and I quote “Canada has perhaps one of the safest regimes for the transportation of dangerous goods of any country in the world”.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said recently that the federal government was neglecting border transport of dangerous waste.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How does she plan to respond to the environment commissioner's allegations, in the light of the complacent remarks by the Minister of Transport?

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-441, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.

This bill is almost identical to Bill C-65, which died on the Order Paper. Some changes were made regarding the role of provinces, but the bill still does not respect provincial jurisdictions.

The purpose of this bill is to protect wildlife species at risk. It provides for the establishment of a list of designated species as well as a recovery process. The designation of species, the scientific criteria used to include a species on the list and the recovery plans will be among the responsibilities of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC. There will be a complete restructuring of this organization from its current form. It will be made up of nine members appointed by the Minister of the Environment, and they will be paid.

Bill C-441 will apply to the so-called federal species such as migratory birds and aquatic species. It also deals with transboundary species as well as all species found on federal lands, and their habitats.

This bill prohibits anyone from killing, harming, disturbing, harassing, capturing or taking an individual of a species at risk as defined in the bill. Also, no person shall destroy its residence, its den or its nest. Those who contravene the act will face heavy fines and penalties.

Bill C-441 directly threatens the provinces' jurisdiction in environmental matters. In fact, on the pretext of meeting the requirements of the international convention on biodiversity, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Davenport interferes in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Bill C-441 does not respect the constitutional division of powers with regard to the environment because it is based on a much too broad interpretation of the definition of territory and because it does not respect the joint responsibility of the federal government and the provinces with regard to certain species.

The bill gives the Minister of the Environment broad discretionary powers, in particular regarding appointment of the COSEWIC members, listing by COSEWIC of threatened or endangered species and the authority to implement or not recovery plans, etc.

It should be noted that even if there is an amendment to section 5(3) regarding admission criteria, our concerns remain basically unanswered. The Minister of the Environment still has discretionary power.

One fundamental fact we must remember is that, since 1989, Quebec has had legislation on this and that the legislation works well and has had good results. We should avoid creating more bureaucracy and useless duplication—I am sure the member for Davenport will agree on that—and we should also use our energy for what we believe is important, that is the fate of threatened species.

This bill, rather than allowing provinces to participate in the designation and recovery process of threatened or endangered species, excludes them.

In its preamble, the bill tries to demonstrate that the protection of biological diversity is a fundamental issue, so important that it is a national concern. Hence, the bill introduced by the member for Davenport tries to grant the federal government powers that would allow it to intefere in what is clearly provincial jurisdiction, by putting forward the necessity to abide by the biodiversity convention. The bill validates interference by federal government.

In our view, the federal government cannot justify such interference by putting forward the necessity to abide by a convention, because it is the provinces that have to implement the convention on their own territory.

I would also like to raise another point and that has to do with the definition of federal land. I have a problem with that, because the definition in the bill is much too general. It defines federal land as land, including any water, that belongs to Her Majesty, and the air above that land, the internal waters of Canada as determined by the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, including the seabed and subsoil below and the airspace above those waters, and any other lands that are set apart under the Indian Act.

You will understand why I cannot subscribe to such a broad definition which implies that the seabed, the subsoil, and the airspace above internal fresh waters, which normally come under provincial jurisdiction, will be managed by Bill C-441. The definition of federal land refers to other legislative texts giving jurisdiction to the federal government over the fisheries and shipping on internal waters.

As a result, this bill gives the federal government much greater and broader authority over everything connected with these lands, including the protection of endangered species.

I want to clarify by describing in greater detail the division of powers regarding the protection of the environment, especially wildlife, under the Constitution. As could be expected, the protection of wildlife and its habitat is not provided for in the Constitutional Act of 1867.

However, under this act, the provinces have jurisdiction over the management of public lands, they belong to the provinces—subsection 92(5), property and civil rights—subsection 92(13), and generally all matters of a merely local or private nature—subsection 92(16). These powers are specific enough and broad enough to allow the provinces to legislate with regard to wildlife on provincial public lands as well as on private properties.

The use of the term “federal species” is confusing because this notion does not take into account the territory where those species are found. Under Bill C-441, migratory birds are considered federal species, even though they have always been recognized as a joint responsibility of the federal government and the provinces.

The bill states that, under the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government has jurisdiction over sea coast and inland fisheries—section 91, paragraph 12—and may therefore appropriate any power with regard to the protection of fish, marine mammals and marine flora found in Canada's territorial sea and internal waters, including the subsoil below and the air above. Nothing less. Similarly, this bill gives the federal government jurisdiction over the habitat of migratory birds, whether the said habitat is on provincial land or not.

Combined with the definition of “federal land” and with section 35, which deals with transboundary species, this is certainly one of the most questionable provisions of this bill.

So the bill gives the federal government the power to intervene with wildlife species and their habitat, aquatic species and their habitat and migratory birds.

I would have added a lot more things, but I can only congratulate the member for Davenport for having introduced this bill to the House. I know how interested he is in everything that concerns the protection of species at risk and the environment.

The Bloc Quebecois criticizes this bill primarily because it totally changes the rules of the game by not establishing a species' territory and confirms direct meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction.