Mr. Speaker, I rise today to clarify our role as Canadians and to highlight the whole journey of getting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to where it is now at third reading.
I would first like to say that we were quite discouraged with government members during the voting last night and with Reform members who voted with the Liberal cabinet in support of watering down environmental protection in the country.
One of my hon. colleagues said that the youth of the country and the world are very cognizant of the environmental damage that the industrialized revolution and the industrial ways of living have diminished our health and our environment. They are very conscious of changes that have to be made. The youth are telling us this.
We have received letters in these last few days and hours telling us that a mistake was made last night in watering down the environmental protection of the country. Then an hon. member said that there was a mistake, that when the standing committee was formed and the way it did its parliamentary duties was overly environmental.
To Canadians, the youth who are listening, environment is life. We live off this land, off this water, off this air. If we do not protect our environment, there is no future for us.
In industry, trade and manufacturing, people make their daily profits while they pollute and put their garbage into our environment. It impacts on us. If we want these people to sit on our environment committee and empower it on a balanced situation, future generations will struggle.
Our youth are environmentally conscious. They will dominate this House of Commons. They will dominate all committees, including the industry committee and the trade committee. Youth are our future.
Last night we made a major mistake. We watered down this country's basic environmental protection law by adopting amendments that were proposed by industry. The Reform Party was lobbied. The Liberal cabinet was lobbied. The parliamentary secretary and the ministers were lobbied. They buckled and they watered down our environmental protection act. It is the third reading debate today and the vote will be held tonight.
I want to put some quotes on the record and I will submit them to the Clerk. This letter which was circulated highlights the key problems with Bill C-32 as revised by the committee. The committee worked on this for years under public review. In its report “It's About Your Health”, the standing committee made its recommendations to strengthen pollution prevention, not pollution control or pollution management, but pollution prevention, to stop pollution.
This is what industry had to say about the committee's work:
Application of virtual elimination. For reasons that are unclear to us, the Department of Environment proposed to the committee significant changes to the virtual elimination construct initially proposed in Bill C-32. The new construct changes the virtual elimination definition so that it is now based on achieving releases below the limit of qualification, and incorporates two distinct measures to achieve virtual elimination:
The release number should be set by the governor in council and not by the ministers alone—
Virtual elimination planning based on achieving below limits of qualification releases is faulty public policy as it is fraught with operational uncertainty and would impose a huge regulatory overhang without any demonstrable reduction in environmental or health risks.
Virtual elimination is a working qualification that we can continue to pollute to a measurable amount in this country. The minister will allow these limits.
In the preamble of the bill we wanted to have a phase-out of the toxic chemicals and toxins in this country. We wanted to phase them out. We did not get that in the operational side of the bill but we were successful in getting it in the preamble. The front side of the bill says that we want to phase out eventually; the operational side says that the minister recommends virtual elimination.
What happened after the industry put its foot down in sending out these documents is that “achieving virtual elimination” in the bill has been taken out. It is only “limits of qualification will be set by the minister”.
This country is in a loophole. Canadians want to phase out chemicals and toxic substances. The government says we will virtually eliminate. Industry says just set the limit and let us continue to do our business. This whole issue of pollution prevention has been eliminated, completely phased out from Bill C-32 as it is before us.
I would also like to highlight that the integrity of the standing committee has been tested not only by industry but by this government and the minister. The minister challenged us that in committee we should not change major clauses in the bill. We made changes and she put forth many amendments to repeal the changes.
In terms of getting even, so to speak, she also put an amendment that the next review of Bill C-32, the CEPA, would not be exclusively done by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The exclusive review could be taken by the committee responsible in the other place. The Senate could review the next bill if it is approved. That is a major detriment.
I raise this issue for all hon. members, my colleagues to my right, who speak on behalf of seeing an effective and elected Senate. All members should be aware that the Senate does not have the exclusive right. It does not have the democratic representation to review these acts.
This country has a process for creating acts and laws. The House of Commons standing committees have the first right to make recommendations and review ministerial drafts. Then the bill goes through this House before it goes to the other place. This process could be sidestepped with the amendment that was introduced last night and which is now in place. I draw this to the attention of all parliamentarians.
Another issue I raised and which the hon. minister highlighted was scientific certainty. Cost effectiveness was a major concern for industry, that any measure taken to protect our environment should be cost effective. The committee had eliminated this. It was brought back in with an amendment by the Reform Party and the Liberal cabinet. They want cost effective measures to ensure that industry has the profit driven derivatives as a priority over the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. Cost effective was a major battle in committee and inevitably industry won.
The other side of scientific certainty is aboriginal traditional knowledge which is a bold inclusion, but there is an oversight. We introduced an amendment yesterday which was defeated. Aboriginal people are not defined in the bill. We put forward a constitutional definition of who the aboriginal people are: the Indian, the Metis and the Inuit of this country, but the amendment was not approved.
A lot of the aboriginal people in this country have lived a sustainable life on the land. Their intrinsic knowledge is oral based. They know the plants, the animals, the waters and the effects on the environment. All of this is an oral based tradition. It is not a science based tradition. Giving that equal weight is a bold move under CEPA. We encourage that.
A huge group of aboriginal people have been taken out of the definition. The Metis have been overlooked under the Indian Act, under the land claims and again under this bill. It would have been an opportunity for them to contribute to the betterment of our environment. We wanted to raise that issue.
Another amendment that was soundly defeated last night was the protection of our children. We asked that CEPA consider the child specific reviews, studies and assessments of the toxic impact on our children in the school yards, at the beaches, in the parks, in the many shopping malls and playgrounds they frequent. These are child specific areas. We asked that Environment Canada and Health Canada specifically study what impacts those areas.
A child's growth is more vulnerable than that of an adult with an immune system that is well in tact. Children are still developing and toxins such as endocrine disrupters impact on them. If they are exposed at the wrong time at the wrong place the effects could be detrimental.
Public participation is certainly a big section in this bill, but the public right to know and the public right to sue have been watered down because of industry's interests of cost effectiveness. If any toxins were released into our environment, the minister would have to prove the industry had knowingly polluted before she could publicly sue. In terms of a loophole somebody could simply say that they did not know they were polluting. That would eliminate all the laws put forward in CEPA. “I did not know I was polluting” could be a statement of defence that would let every polluter off the hook. Any cost recovery required by the minister would not carry any weight.
The issue of biotechnology was highlighted in the bill. Under the committee process we empowered the environment and health ministers to take effective decisions on biotechnology. It is a growing and very cautious industry. It is also a very non-transparent industry. Industry and government are at one end of the issue and the public and consumers are at the other end. Government has to protect the public and the consumers, not just the needs of industry. We wanted the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment to look at the public interest.
In terms of biotechnology we are going to be exposed to organisms that have been altered genetically in our food, in our environment, in our bodies. The wish of the industry lobby all along has been to have these issues considered and the decisions made by the governor in council. Then industry would have a small group of people to lobby. The cabinet ministers are a small group and they would be an easy target, but to lobby the 301 MPs in this House is too much of a task. This parliament has lost its power by giving the governor in council too much decision making on biotechnology which is a growing issue.
In terms of the whole issue of the governor in council and the industry lobby, the precautionary principle was a major concern for industry. I quote from the section on cost effectiveness:
The original bill generally incorporated the notion of “cost effectiveness” in a number of sections (Administrative Duties, Information Gathering provisions and Pollution Prevention Planning provisions) and these references have been systematically deleted by the Parliamentary Committee. The Committee has also introduced provisions into the Administrative Duties section ... that require the government to consider the benefits of taking environmental action, do not require it to consider the costs and even specify that if there are no benefits identified, this should not stand in the way of taking action. This creates an imbalance in the Bill that is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development whereby environmental, economic and social considerations all have to be integrated. The original balance in the Bill needs to be restored by reinserting the previous references ... to actions having to be cost effective.
Ladies and gentlemen, parliamentarians, cost effective—
