Charles Caccia

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wish to express full support for the argument just advanced by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that his advocacy for the splitting of the vote on these two motions would be in the best interests of the House and of the parliamentary process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will address very briefly Motions Nos. 185 and 193, and then the motion on nutrients, and put these reservations forward for your attention.

The amendments regarding international air and water pollution again would require the Minister of the Environment to go to cabinet before making a decision on the subject of international air and water pollution or pollution that may result in another country because of activities in Canada.

These motions require the environment minister to go to cabinet before requiring a person to prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan, yet pollution prevention is in the title of this legislation. Therefore, one would expect that powers would be included in the bill for the health and environment ministers to request plans in serious cases of possible pollution.

International pollution is clearly a role for the federal Minister of the Environment, which one would expect industry to support considering industry's claims in favour of pollution prevention planning. Why then does industry lobby for a further obstacle and delay? Why does industry lobby for imposing a further delay on this rather important step?

The official government explanation for this last minute change to remove this power from the minister and give it to the cabinet is that these changes are there because they are normal, given the international dimension of these issues. The government explanation goes on to say that the involvement of the governor in council, namely cabinet, is normal.

Who raised this concern? It was the lobby groups representing chemical production, petroleum, steel and other industries. We have several letters from these groups asking for this amendment, almost word for word.

Second, putting this power squarely in the hands of the federal environment minister should not be described as unilateral, as some have done. Rather, it is a necessary ministerial power.

Third, the involvement of cabinet in a new measure in Bill C-32, namely, the power of the environment minister to require a person to prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan under certain circumstances, cannot be explained as normal. It is clearly the role of the Minister of the Environment to take preventive actions. Where there is a case of a potential Canadian source polluting United States air or water, citizens of the other country would expect prompt action to be taken to prevent that pollution. Motions Nos. 185 and 193 will eliminate the possibility of prompt preventive action by the Minister of the Environment and send the decision to cabinet where other ministers hold diverging views. It is difficult to see why such discussions are necessary unless the objective is to create delays and possibly bring considerations other than the protection of the environment and human health to the table.

It is important to note in the context of Motions Nos. 185 and 193 that these proposals were not made during the long and detailed study in committee. It should also be noted that these motions were requested by industry lobby groups in the weeks following our committee study and deliberations. Finally, it should be noted that the Reform Party has proposed amendments similar to Motions Nos. 185 and 193.

For all of these reasons, regretfully, I will have to vote against these two motions.

On the question of nutrients, Motion No. 154 comes like a bolt from the blue. It is brand new. It was not mentioned. It was not proposed in committee. It was not proposed by any witness before the committee nor in the clause by clause deliberations. Yet it has appeared in the name of the Minister of the Environment. A very similar amendment miraculously appeared in the name of the Reform Party as well.

The effect of the amendment, if passed, would be this. As an example, the Minister of the Environment could no longer prevent the pollution of water by certain nutrients. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could say “I have the power to prevent pollution by nutrients in water”. Cabinet would then decide if the power of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was sufficient. The Minister of the Environment would no longer have a role to play. The public would have no knowledge of how this decision came about because, as we all know, cabinet discussions and decisions are secret.

Who would decide whether the regulations which fall under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food provide sufficient protection? In the case of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, for example, his mandate is at best a mixed mandate, namely, promoting food production, farmers' interests, the protection of soil and, at the same time, promoting the industries that produce pesticides, fertilizers and nutrients. On whose side will the minister be?

To put it in other terms, in this case and in other parts of Bill C-32 that the committee did not succeed in amending, there is pattern. The pattern is that ministers, who do not have as their chief mandate the protection of the environment and human health, have sufficient powers to decide: one, what is sufficient protection of the environment and human health and what it means, and two, whether a certain standard provided in the regulations of a minister, other than the Minister of the Environment, is the determining and final factor.

Unfortunately, this amendment will have the net effect of giving powers to a minister, other than the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Health, to make a decision as to what is sufficient protection.

That is an example of how this bill is being weakened at report stage. It is a very regrettable development because in the end it will be at the expense of public health and the quality of water and air. I hope it is not proceeded with at report stage tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to make an intervention to express an interest and a positive feeling in relation to Motions Nos. 41 and 70 proposed by the hon. member for Churchill River.

Motion No. 41 is a very forward-looking legislative thought because the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Health would be required to take certain actions, such as conducting research or developing guidelines in relation to environmental pollutants that might be harmful to children.

Motion No. 70 would broaden powers by allowing the development of regulations respecting substances to ensure a safer environment for children.

In both cases, the member for Churchill River, quite rightly, recognizes the fact, established in the case of lead for instance, that children are much closer to pollutants than adults when there are pollutants in the air and therefore ought to be given particular protection considering their sensitivity, their delicate nature and that they are in a development stage.

The member for Churchill River ought to be congratulated for taking the initiative that he has taken.

I would like to express the hope that the government will listen and take into account these two particular propositions by the member for Churchill River, who has certainly expressed a concern that is very timely and very well integrated with the overall thrust of a government that seems to put particular emphasis on the well-being of children.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the precautionary principle there are many definitions. We can ask ourselves within the context of this discussion why we need a strong rather than a weak definition of the precautionary principle.

The answer comes by way of yesterday's report provided by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Brian Emmett. He writes that Canada is not properly monitoring and draws the attention of parliament in his report to the fact that Canada is not managing pesticides and toxic chemicals. He goes on to cite poor data collection, interministerial squabbling, cuts to science spending and pollution monitoring.

Cuts to science spending have been corrected in recent days by an announcement by the minister. However, there is a widespread feeling among senior scientists in government employment. They are alarmed at the government's declining ability to detect toxic substances and prevent their harmful effects.

In committee we recommended cleanup plans for industry based on a strong precautionary principle paving the way for the environment minister who would deem toxic chemicals to be inherently dangerous and implement controls without waiting for definite scientific proof of harm. Unfortunately the government under pressure from the Canadian Chemical Producers Association has diluted that requirement by ensuring by way of this amendment that the minister would have to have evidence of long term harm before acting and has burdened the minister with this additional cost effectiveness feature.

We can ask ourselves why we need a strong rather than a weak definition of this precautionary principle. Again we find the answer in yesterday's report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development when he writes that government departments “with shared responsibility for dealing with toxic chemicals not only do not co-operate, but in some cases have radically different views on what to do”. He points out that Environment Canada, fisheries and oceans, and health are often at odds with Industry Canada and the Department of Natural Resources. He states:

In many cases, departments are deeply divided on the risks posed by toxic substances and this has led to considerable conflict...In many cases, conflicts between departments have surpassed a healthy level of debate and have led to strained relations, indecision and inaction.

Therefore, because of the problems pointed out by Mr. Emmett, it becomes evident that what is needed is a strong precautionary principle that would help in improving the existing situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to the preamble is also of some importance. It ought to be elaborated on in a more balanced way because the insertion of the word risk in the preamble certainly raises some important and difficult questions.

This is an amendment that was not discussed in committee. It is a very recent initiative. It did not receive the full discussion that an amendment of this importance ought to receive considering that whatever is included in the preamble provides guidance for those who will interpret the legislation no matter what the name of the legislation may be.

There are some who say that the insertion of the word risk would strengthen this clause of the preamble because it would call for action where there are potential adverse effects or risks and not just actual adverse effects. That may well be so, but there is also another interpretation which should encourage us to be cautious before supporting this kind of amendment.

It is quite possible because of the element of surprise attached to this motion that it was proposed by industry without a proper discussion in committee, as I said. It is quite possible that by including the word risk in the preamble the government would not be able to act quickly to eliminate harmful substances. It is therefore an initiative that is part of a broader offensive so to speak, by lobbyists that represent a specific sector but who do not take into account the main thrust and purpose of this bill which is to prevent pollution and to protect human health.

Risk assessment is part of the government policy. It is elaborated on in the toxic substances management policy. In that policy, risk assessment is dealt with in a quite satisfactory manner. It is a policy that the government adopted in 1995. I am afraid that by inserting this terminology in the preamble the effectiveness of the toxic substances management policy would be superseded or weakened by this initiative.

As has probably been understood by the thrust of this debate, we want to strengthen and enhance pollution prevention. We want to use this piece of legislation as the only strong piece of legislation that actually protects human health from toxic substances. There is none other available in the arsenal of legislation the federal government has passed on behalf of Canadians.

It is a motion that somehow puts aside the long deliberations and discussions that took place in committee as was mentioned earlier by an hon. member. It is rather disturbing considering that this bill was in committee for such a long time that an amendment is put forward here that was not the subject of deliberations in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will share the sense of dismay and disappointment at this kind of procedure. After all we have a well organized system under the roof of this parliament. We send bills to committee for deliberation, examination, study and possible improvements. That is what we did.

As parliamentarians from all parties, we do not look favourably to those initiatives whereby an amendment is proposed out of the blue so to speak, which may have some serious implications. Also the jury is not in yet because this bill is not yet in place. This in a way bypasses the system. It is a practice that ought to be discouraged, Mr. Speaker, and it is my duty to bring it to your attention.

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

Madam Speaker, the motions in this group, particularly those proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, would weaken national leadership, they would weaken national concerns and they would prevent national regulations from applying in Quebec. These motions would mean a step backward and ought to be defeated.

There are other amendments which represent a step backward because they will have a negative impact on public health. Take for instance inherent toxicity, about which we spent a lot of time in committee. Here the public health is threatened because the proposed amendment takes from the minister a needed measure to accelerate the process of preventing pollution or eliminating a substance from entering the environment. True, there is pollution prevention planning in the legislation but it is very weak. Actually it has virtually no teeth because the pollution prevention plans are not enforceable.

We are therefore very concerned about what is being proposed. In the words of someone who has worked as a consultant and as an environmental lawyer as well on this very legislation “This proposed amendment is very significant and would gut the bill of the significant direction taken in this clause toward inherent toxicity”. This is a very bad move in terms of protecting public health.

There is the issue of virtual elimination on which we also worked very hard in committee. The government came forward with an amendment which we were glad to work on but now at report stage we see that changes are being proposed. There is a shift in focus from achieving near zero pollution to a process which is unclear and vague, a process which gives no clear mandate to reach zero pollution. I am sad to say that the long term is being sacrificed in favour of the short term.

Then there is the issue of the precautionary principle. One of the many problems that the committee dealt with was the absence of a strong administrative duty on the part of the government to apply this principle. The precautionary approach means that we should not wait for damage to the environment or human health to occur before acting.

There are many definitions of the precautionary approach. The version chosen to appear in the preamble was unfortunately one of the weakest ones available because it would place a straitjacket by imposing cost effective considerations. We worked very hard in improving that.

The proposed version now of the precautionary principle is not the only one available. Canada and other nations have signed on to many other versions in environmental agreements involving fishery, biodiversity and ocean dumping. In fact the London Dumping Convention of 1972 as renewed in 1996 including Canada has a much stronger version without mentioning cost effectiveness. Therefore the idea of the pollution prevention and of the precautionary principle should not be distorted and burdened by the obstacles posed by cost effectiveness.

Another amendment that is in the category of undesirables is the one that came forward in relation to nutrients. This amendment comes like a bolt from the blue so to speak. It is brand new. It was not mentioned or proposed in committee. It was not proposed by any witness before the committee. It is hard to see why it has appeared at the eleventh hour of the debate on this bill.

The effect of the amendment if passed would be that the Minister of the Environment could no longer prevent pollution in water by certain nutrients. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food instead could say “I have the power to prevent pollution by nutrients in water”. Cabinet would then decide if the power of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would be sufficient and the Minister of the Environment, who has a strong mandate to protect the environment, would no longer have a role to play. This motion as well weakens the bill.

I have just elaborated on a few rather important amendments which if they were passed would transform this bill, I must say and with regret, from a weak law into a paper tiger. The net effect of these changes as they are being proposed in some of these groups particularly by the government will make Bill C-32 an exercise in distorted phrases. Perhaps they are skilfully crafted sentences made for the purpose of convincing the public in an almost Orwellian fashion in an attempt to create an impression of strength when in reality the emperor has no clothes.

If certain amendments of the kind I have touched upon are passed into law, a few lobbyists will prove to have been more powerful than the permanent members of the standing committee. I am referring to those who toiled on the subject of toxic substances for over five years.

If certain amendments of the kind I have described this morning are passed, the public and its health will be poorly protected from toxic substances. The meaning of pollution prevention will be seriously discredited. Unfortunately, I must also add that a key electoral promise will not have been kept.

Those of us who feel very strongly about this bill, are standing for a very simple and straightforward principle: that Canadians can have health protection at the same time as sound investments. There is no conflict between making into reality the fact that we can have at the same time a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

With that thought in mind, I will let the House know that when it comes to the vote on certain motions, it is my intention to vote with regret against my government. I think the motivation is very clear. It is one that puts the public health ahead of investments. It is one that motivates for the reduction of health costs in the long term.

It is one that is also attempting to bring closer the commitments we made to the Canadian public in two electoral campaigns, namely that we would not just deal with the releases into the environment of toxic substances; we went much further in our commitment and said that we would deal with the gradual elimination of the use of toxic substances. In that respect, this bill is a far cry from what we promised in the 1993 campaign. I am referring to page 66 of the red book where it is very clearly explained and set out.

I think what unites us in this room today is a different interpretation of what it means to fight for the public interest. I imagine that all my colleagues will agree with me that this is what is motivating us. The approach I am developing may be one with a particular emphasis on the long term, with a particular emphasis on giving precedence to the public health with the strong belief that Canadians can all have in this very fortunate country health protection and sound investments without having to sacrifice one for the other.

[Petitions, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present on behalf of my constituents and people in the broader area of Toronto and Hamilton a petition addressed to the House of Commons.

It calls on parliament to enact animal protection legislation that provides for the abrogation of any part of the Criminal Code which reduces animals to the status of property, that provides for the imposition of sanctions upon those convicted of cruelty to animals in a variety of ways, and that provides for the severest penalties when crimes against animals are committed for the purpose of financial gain.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on the meeting held in London between March 7 and 9, 1999 on the occasion of a meeting with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, another report on the meeting which took place with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development on behalf of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident from the interventions by the Reform Party that it wants a weaker bill. It wants a bill that loses its original intent and mandate in a manner which makes it extremely weak.

The words used by the member for Lethbridge is also interesting. He talked about the players in the game and that we must be a leader. The question is in what?

Neither the member for Lethbridge nor his other Reform Party colleague referred to public health once. Their main concern is the quite evident preoccupation with the industrial side of this bill and not with its health side.

We might as well call a spade a spade and make it clear that Reform has been on the wrong tack with this bill from the word go. It has also supported in committee every attempt to weaken this bill as it is doing here in the House today.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister was quite right when she referred in her intervention to this bill being a reasonably strong bill. She went as far as to describe it in very positive terms. That description would only be valid if the amendments by the government at report stage are not carried. If they are, then this bill will be weak and it will not perform the intent that was expressed so well and so clearly by the government in 1995 when it replied to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “It's about our Health”.

In the limited time available I will try to address Motions Nos. 2, 14, 67 and 88.

Motion No. 2 would eliminate the words “to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent”. “The generation and use” are important words. We put them in at committee. Actually it was “to phase out the generation”. We thought in the long term that a bill whose aims are the prevention of pollution and the protection of public health should have an indication of that nature in the preamble. Therefore this amendment should be resisted.

Motion No. 14 is an amendment whereby in the administrative duties of the government the products of biotechnology would be deleted. It is very unfortunate that the government would see fit to present such a motion. It implies that the products of biotechnology should be the domain of just one department, namely the Department of Industry, as if biotechnology is a matter of economic concern alone. That is wrong. Biotechnology touches on a number of values that go far beyond the economic values and concerns of society. Therefore the deletion of the products of biotechnology from clause 2(1)(j) ought to be resisted.

I will move on to an item that has already been raised by others and quite understandably so, namely virtual elimination. We must be very clear in trying to convey to the public what it is all about.

When this bill came out of committee, as it now stands before us before any amendment, the matter of eliminating, so to say in vague terms, toxic substances would be the prerogative of the ministers. The ministers, as the bill reads right now, shall make regulations respecting allowable releases. It is left to the two responsible ministers, environment and health, to make that determination.

The amendment being proposed by the government says that there would have to be a precondition before this could take place. In other words an obstacle is set in the way of the two ministers. Namely the specification by the ministers of the level of quantification for each substance on this famous list called virtual elimination would be a precondition to the making of the regulation. This is a considerable weakening of the clause as it is presently in the bill and when it came from committee.

It is quite clear that we have yielded to pressures, to lobbyists. We have somehow decided to put forward an amendment, and it is most unfortunate that the government would have done that, that is watering down and weakening the handling of the very central issue in the bill of virtual elimination of toxic substances.

Virtual elimination is a central key issue which requires considerable debate and not just the few minutes that are available to us.

The idea that was conceived in committee of the ultimate reduction of toxic substances has disappeared. There is no clear requirement to continue as it is intended to ratchet down the limits of release. The proposed amendment will legitimize the continued use of toxic substances which is a very unfortunate development. Therefore, I would urge colleagues not to vote for this amendment.

Motion No. 88 deals with the question of inherent toxicity. This amendment is extremely difficult to explain in the course of this debate. Again it weakens the bill because it removes the possibility of having access to a faster track for the elimination of harmful substances. It is an amendment that ought to be rejected.

The amendment seriously weakens the work of the committee whose permanent members attempted very conscientiously to find ways of reinforcing the thrust of the bill with the main purpose of the bill in mind, namely that of preventing pollution and of protecting human health. We are dealing here with some very dangerous substances. We are dealing here with a process that requires some clear measures that aim at the long term elimination of substances that are harmful to human health and to the environment.

The committee has attempted to do that. However, a number of amendments in Group No. 1 would weaken that effort and the substance of the bill before us this afternoon.

For these reasons I urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to reject the major amendments in Group No. 1, and particularly the ones that I referred to in my brief presentation.

[Mining Industry, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week it seems appropriate to consider the effects of mining on the environment, its speculative nature and its impact on water, soil and the environment in general. One need only think of Bre-X, the use of cyanide to extract gold and mine tailings containing arsenic, as in the case of the Giant mine, with substances that are harmful to human health.

Last year in Spain and before that in Guyana, two major spills took place involving Canadian mining companies. Such accidents should not happen anywhere. If mining is to have a place in Canada, its promoters should take strong measures to prevent spills, to adopt non-toxic processes and to decommission mines properly.

The mining industry must be made to prevent the creation of toxic time bombs rather than leaving a mess to future generations.