Rick Laliberte

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in the remaining moments of the debate. As we all know, debate is limited. This is environment week. It would have been nice to debate Bill C-32 for the whole week but we are restricted to just two more minutes.

I want to get the attention of the government and the parliamentary secretary who boldly stated that the commissioner of environment was created by the Liberal government and in essence that the actions will be taken.

Ontario is number one at importing toxic waste. We can take that as a fact. Ontario is a large industrial province. It is also number one in North America. It is not just number one in Canada, it is in North America on importing of toxic waste. The Americans have worked hard under the EPA system to strengthen and enforce their regulatory system under the environment and waste rules. All these industries have found a safe haven in Ontario. It is the fault of the Ontario government and the federal government. They have not taken care of a gaping responsibility in terms of toxic waste in this province and the country.

We have talked about harmonization of provincial and federal responsibilities. There are great gaps as opposed to overlaps, as the minister has addressed.

I want to highlight in retrospect all these amendments that come into play. Cost effectiveness and the phase-out of toxins in the country are now being eliminated in the preamble. Phase-out is a major component of pollution prevention.

Bill C-32 should be renamed as an act allowing the pollution of the environment and risking human health to ensure unsustainable development so the finance minister can balance his budget and the polluters can poison our bodies, our children, our future and our fortunes.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the integrity of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the thorough work it did on Bill C-32 would be jeopardized on a five year cycle review. All this could be left to the other place. I believe the House of Commons should keep its integrity and keep the standing committee's integrity for this is truly the work of elected parliamentarians.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-32, in Clause 116, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 87 the following:

«substance à effet de perturbation du système hormonal» ““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 Environment, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

When it comes to the environment, this Liberal government is all talk and no action. The environment commissioner last week agreed by titling his report “The Gap between Talk and Action”.

Bill C-32 is for pollution prevention. Canadians want the phase-out of the worst toxics in the country, but this government is for virtual elimination. This does not stop pollution. Will the Prime Minister stand up and stop pollution before he is considered the virtual Prime Minister?

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

Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that we are dealing with Bill C-32 at this time. This is the beginning of environment week in Canada. The environment should be of utmost priority.

The group of amendments before us will strengthen the environmental protection of this country, its citizens and its whole biodiversity. The motions in Group No. 6 deal specifically with children. We have had great debate over this past year on Bill C-32.

The Canadian population has seen our environment experience major drastic changes and effects from pollution, toxic substances, pesticides and biotechnology. The growth of the industrial revolution and its impact on our environment, our livelihood and our health is coming to a point where we have to be very cautious of what we do in the future. If we are not cautious the children will be responsible for cleaning up the mess that we leave. We are cleaning up what the previous generation left us and we would hate to be responsible for leaving a mess for our children to clean up.

The motions in Group No. 6 challenge the federal ministers of health and the environment. As my hon. colleagues from the Bloc have highlighted, this may contradict their belief that federal and provincial responsibilities are the main question in their decision. I would beg all members of the House to look at the vulnerability of our children first. Let us put aside our federal and provincial differences. Let us put aside our partisan differences in the House and look at the vulnerability of our children as a whole. Let us look at our own homes, our children and grandchildren. Let us look at the role we hope to see ourselves play as grandparents in the future.

If we do not specify the uniqueness of our children and their vulnerability, we will have missed our responsibility as parliamentarians and as parents. Even before children are born and their growth pattern starts, they are immediately exposed by their mother's responsibility of providing food and drink. As our children are growing and developing we sometimes do not detect the effects of the many toxins and substances they are exposed to. We assume it is their natural growing and development curve.

If adults were exposed to the same toxins and are poisoned or affected neurologically in terms of behaviour or physically in terms of their organs, they would see a sudden change in that pattern. They would look to their doctors for an analysis because they would know that something was drastically wrong. They would go to clinics and ask for help and seek advice from nurses.

Children cannot speak for themselves. We cannot find out what substances have been causing major changes in neurological and behaviour disorders, the function of their organs and their growing patterns. Children do not know if something is wrong. We naturally accept their growth and development to be the same as other children.

As the hon. member for Fundy Royal mentioned, pound for pound children consume more water, food and air than adults do so we have to take special care. The amendments we have put forward specifically look at the areas children inhabit, such as playgrounds and school yards. They may be adjacent to major industries and manufacturing companies. If the provincial and federal health and environment ministers send their information gathering officers out and they only take samples in general throughout the whole community they may overlook specific needs.

They may not look at swimming pools or waterslides. With temperatures like today's their use will rise during the summer. Children do not think about what kind of substances they are exposed to in swimming pools or at the many beaches, lakes and cottages where people seek a haven with a clean environment and clean air. Some waterways are affected by certain industries and if they go undetected there are drastic impacts.

We are looking at specific sites and recommending that due respect be given to the vulnerability of children. We must not overlook it. We must take our responsibility very seriously that we do not put them at risk.

Another contentious issue I bring forward is the leadership of our country on the environment. A recent report from the commissioner of the environment said that the government has done well in providing guidance and being in the lead of making press releases of initiatives but when it comes to action there is a major gap. Press releases and press conferences have highlighted what is going to happen and what hopefully will happen but when it comes to getting the budgets, the resources and the personnel to make it happen, that is where the major weakness is in the Liberal government's leadership.

That is why I call for time to reflect at this time. Let us make sure that the provisions of the act are strengthened. Let us make sure the protection of our children and children's specific issues are highlighted in the bill.

This past week we received a highlight of a major conference in New York. It was specifically on the impact of the environment on children and their specific health issues. The Government of Canada must take leadership on these issues and call on the provincial and municipal governments, the health leadership of this country to create a dialogue about what specific issues have to be discussed.

Bill C-32 is on its way if the amendments do not diminish any of the strong clauses. Common sense prevailed through the committee process and it strengthened the bill. If this bill survives that whole process, this bill should be enacted and brought forward. It would give leadership to the people, the parents, the teachers, the health care workers, the caregivers and provide them with an opportunity to contribute. A lot of this could be driven on the needs of the children. That is what the provisions in Group No. 6 highlight.

We did not have an opportunity to speak on Group No. 5. We recognize that a lot of the amendments were concordance of the French and English translations, but there were substantive changes. We draw attention to a concern we have on the issue of interpretation and the law for loopholes because this will be a legal document.

Be careful on some of the amendments. They may look like housekeeping amendments but the government has proven to be untrustworthy in many cases through its record on environment. We will try to make it accountable right to the bitter end to make sure that the health and safety of Canadians, and specifically our children, are covered under Bill C-32.

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

moved:

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-32, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 28 the following:

“(5) The Ministers shall conduct research or studies relating to a safer environment for children and shall ( a ) identify environmental pollutants commonly used or found in areas that are reasonably accessible to children; ( b ) create a list that has been reviewed by a team of scientists of environmental pollutants identified under paragraph ( a ) to have known, probable, or suspected health risks to children; ( c ) create a scientifically reviewed list of safer-for-children substances and products recommended by the Ministers for use in areas that are reasonably accessible to children and that will minimize potential risks to children from exposure to environmental pollutants; ( d ) establish guidelines to help reduce and eliminate the exposure of children to environmental pollutants in areas reasonably accessible to children, including advice on how to establish an integrated environmental pollutant reduction program; ( e ) create a family right-to-know information kit that includes a summary of helpful information and guidance to families, including the list created under paragraph ( c ), the guidelines established under paragraph ( d ), information on the potential health effects of environmental pollutants, practical suggestions on how parents may reduce their children's exposure to environmental pollutants and other relevant information, as determined by the Ministers; ( f ) make all information gathered under this subsection available to governments and the public; and ( g ) review and update the lists created under paragraphs ( b ) and ( c ) at least every two years.”

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-32, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 41 with the following:

“the property or characteristic; and ( e ) respecting the guidelines, conditions and procedures relating to compliance to be followed, in relation to the property on characteristic of the substance, in areas that are reasonably accessible to children, to ensure a safer environment for children.”

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-32, in Clause 68, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 42 with the following:

“substance in the environment; and ( d ) correlate and evaluate any data collected or generated under paragraph ( a ) that would allow quantification and evaluation of child-specific and other vulnerable subpopulation-specific susceptibility to the exposure to and bioaccumulation of the substance present or released into the environment.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-32, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 26 the following:

““areas that are reasonably accessible to children” include homes, schools, day care centres, shopping malls, movie theatres, beaches and parks.”

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-32, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 26 the following:

““environmental pollutant” means a substance that endangers the health, safety or welfare of humans or animal life, degrades or alters, or forms part of a process of degradation or alteration of, an ecosystem to an extent that is detrimental to its use by humans, animals or plants.”

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to have the opportunity to speak to Group No. 4, a portion of distinct amendments that are coming into play.

I refer to a statement that was made during clause by clause consideration. After listening to the witnesses that had come forth and presented in honesty their reflections on Bill C-32 as it was originally drafted, we had the task of going through the bill clause by clause. The only thought that came to mind was that we were dealing with a document that resembled pulp fiction. It had good covers. It had a colourful preamble. It had a good title. However the inside of the bill had no powers.

We had cost effective measures that were highlighted in terms of the precautionary principle. We had powers that were diminished by the minister. We had pollution prevention. Virtual elimination was certainly the highlight of the elimination task of the bill. It seemed like we were continuing to pollute the environment and to be a major disruption to our human health.

Along the way and through committee we were able to work with all the party members who were in attendance and thoroughly put their minds, their thoughts and their consciences to work. We came up with Bill C-32 which resembled the needs of Canadians and was balanced on the sustainable development model of the environment, the economy and social well-being. All of these balances were reflected.

What we have with the amendments that have come forward, and a lot of them are highlighted in Group No. 4, is that the government is basing them on cost effectiveness. That is a major detriment to what we have to do. If we are going to take measures to protect our health and our environment we cannot qualify them on cost effectiveness. It is reprehensible that it would be considered at this point. The Liberal cabinet is very adamant about this. We would like to challenge the cabinet to put a price tag on human health and on the protection of our children. That is basically what is happening here. Once we use the terminology of cost effectiveness we put a price tag on the measures and their effects.

There was a very brave Liberal member who in the clause by clause review brought forward the elimination of cost effectiveness. In the parliamentary process, the democratic process, we voted and we all agreed that cost effectiveness should not be part of the precautionary principle terminology and it was voted out. Democracy ruled. Now the Liberal cabinet is not satisfied with that process. It has not respected the democratic process and has come back to the House, with its power and strength in numbers, to try to bring back cost effectiveness.

I challenge members to vote their conscience for the well-being of their families and the well-being of their children and to vote in favour of a strong environmental bill.

Attaching conditions to protective measures is certainly something that was highlighted throughout the deliberations.

I have some examples that I would like to share with members. Recently we heard about Frederick Street in Sydney, Nova Scotia, where toxic ooze began to leak into backyards. It made headlines a year ago. It was on a railway bed. This toxic ooze was included on the priority substances list. Arsenic and other chemicals were in this concoction which was leaking.

What was cost effective? Cost effective was to leave the kids and put a little plastic fence around the area, which was very cheap. It cost maybe $50 for the fence and $10 to hire somebody to put it up. For $60 there was a fence. That was the cost effective measure for environmental protection to keep the kids away from the ooze.

Then this spring the ooze was showing up in their basements. As they were dusting off their bicycles to enjoy the weather, with winter gone, these kids found this ooze on the basement floors and walls of their Frederick Street homes. What is cost effective? It was a major embarrassment. The environment minister has now made some assurances that the federal government will roll up its sleeves to attack this problem. Is it going to take atrocities to knock us on our heads before we smarten up and take action?

Basically we have to get past this pulp fiction issue. We cannot make plans, have good intentions and put up a neon sign saying we are open for business when we have nothing to sell. We have to have substance. We have to have the human resources and the financial resources to act and enforce the laws in this bill.

I would like to continue to speak about the cost effectiveness issue which is a major detriment in terms of Group No. 5. However, I would like to speak about the definitions which are included in Group No. 4.

We have included a definition that covers hormone disrupting substances. It is a major accomplishment in the country and in the world to have this definition included in the bill. It was included in part 3 of CEPA. It is a clause which deals with information gathering. We are adding the hormone disrupting definition at the beginning of the bill so that it plays and resonates throughout the whole bill. If the minister decides, beyond the information that she will be gathering, to make regulations to that effect, there will be a definition in place and we will not have to look for a new one. This bill will have some of the homework done before the minister takes action.

This definition did not have the support and the collaboration of the ministers. The parliamentary secretary played a role. A colleague of mine filled in on the day, a very successful day, when we managed to get this definition. A lot of people remember that historic moment. I believe that everybody deserves a pat on the back for making this happen. It was a win situation for all of us.

Witnesses from the World Wildlife Fund helped to bring forward this definition and they should be congratulated as well. It has been approved by academic, scientific and professional health circles throughout the world. In terms of gender benders we are on the right track and this definition needs to be included.

Included in this group is the definition of aboriginal people. We overlooked this situation. There was a well intentioned inclusion of the aboriginal ecological knowledge of this country where the significance and importance of aboriginal knowledge was recognized.

A lot of peoples and tribes have lived here for many generations, many decades before us, and they have a tremendous knowledge of the ecological and biological diversity of this country. If we do not tap that knowledge and give it a weight which is equal to scientific knowledge we will be missing a great wealth of knowledge.

Aboriginal people should be defined as the Indian, Metis and Innu peoples of Canada. That should put us well on track for a good definition.

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

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 5 the following:

“aboriginal people” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 9 the following:

“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.”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 9 the following:

“recyclable material” means any material or aggregate of materials that, at any particular time and place, has use or value.”

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 10 the following:

““waste” means any solid, liquid or gaseous material or materials or a combination of them, discarded or intended to be discarded as useless and valueless, but excludes recyclable material.”

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

Madam Speaker, before we were interrupted for question period I was about to allude to a letter from a citizen. I wanted to highlight the concerns of citizens across the country, especially the youth. I heard from many students and received many letters. A satellite link-up was created last year as part of the millennium project in Ottawa. Students from coast to coast to coast had an opportunity to converse with the Prime Minister.

The first concern that was raised about the future of our country dealt with the environment. Our children know that we have to take care of the future needs, the water, the soil, the land, the food, the vegetables and the fruits we eat.

Farming is a major industry in terms of agri-food. Family farms and organic farmers are very dependent on economic survival. They have been inundated by an industrial revolution in the area of better produce and better yields, but chemicals have been a mainstay of this research and development.

Science has proven that some of the food life cycles and the ecosystem are in danger. In the long term it is a detriment to our children. Children are nurtured at a young age. They are dependent on their mothers for nutrition and are vulnerable in terms of what we feed them.

The long term effect takes time. As adults we are introduced to new chemicals. Our defence system is well in tact. However, when children are exposed to them toxins can be released into their bodies which affect their organs and neurological system.

The letter highlighted the inability of the government to protect us. It referred to how the government reacted to the issue of MMT as a manganese additive to gasoline last summer. The environment minister and the health minister actually endorsed manganese. The Ethyl Corporation filed a lawsuit. Its country has banned MMT but Canada seems to be a freewheeling region in North America. It engages in scientific research to explore these additives without our being able to protect ourselves. It is actually infringing on our sovereign right to protect our environment and our health.

Bill C-32 concerns the Canadian sovereign right to protect our environmental health and ecosystem. The grouping we are now talking about concerns provincial and federal responsibilities. I highlight for the minister and her cabinet that an example was given to us in the Kyoto protocol. The European Community is not only self-combining its economic source, social and cultural entities and currency. It is also looking at itself as an ecosystem. At Kyoto it brought forward the eco-European bubble concept.

Canada has to look at itself as a bubble. Whatever we do in Ottawa, whatever we do in Ontario, affects Quebec. Quebec affects the maritimes. The maritimes affect Vancouver, the whole Arctic and its vulnerability. The Arctic does not get a direct impact from industrial economic events but it gets the environmental impacts of everything we do in the development of industry.

I ask Canadians and parliamentarians in the House to make sure that Bill C-32 protects the future health of our children and the future of our environment.