Sheila Copps

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 17th, 1994]

The federal government has provided start-up funding for three National Environmental Technology Advancement Centres (NETACs) as non-profit corporations operating at arm's length from government, offering technology commercialization services to small and medium sized enterprises throughout Canada. The centres have so far obtained support from the private sector and other levels of government that exceeds the federal government's $12 million contribution over four years.

The competitive process to establish the NETACs included an extensive consultation with the environmental industry and other interested parties. Proposals to establish centres were subjected to a comprehensive and independent evaluation resulting in the announcement of three NETACs during the summer of 1993. No proposals to establish centres were received from Atlantic Canada.

[Recycling, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to my answer to his first question, I thought I made that clear. This is not a matter of the federal minister imposing her own solution. This was a unanimous decision made by all environment ministers at the meeting in St. John. We identified a problem, and we wanted a harmonized solution.

We followed the path described by my colleague, Mr. Chrétien, the environment critic, who stated at the beginning of his mandate that the environment was not a provincial problem but one that went beyond provincial boundaries and was shared by all Canadians. What I throw in the water in Ontario eventually arrives in Quebec, and that is why we want a harmonized policy.

[Recycling, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the announcement made following the meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers held in St. John, New Brunswick, three weeks ago, it was agreed unanimously to develop a specific strategy that would be in place at the next meeting.

Obviously, waste collection is a provincial responsibility, and any action plan that results from our meeting in November 1994 will have to be implemented by the provinces.

[Sulphur Dioxide Emissions, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House to advise fellow parliamentarians of the signing of the second international protocol on sulphur dioxide emissions. Canada signed this new United Nations agreement in Oslo, Norway yesterday. It is a major step forward in the ongoing battle against acid rain.

The first international agreement on sulphur dioxide was the 1985 Helsinki protocol. Under that agreement Canada pledged to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions by 30 per cent starting in 1993. Thanks to excellent co-operation by the provinces, environmental groups, consumers and industry, Canada has met its commitment. Our sulphur dioxide emissions have now fallen below the 3.2 million tonne limit set for Canada in the agreement. By the end of the year emissions in eastern Canada will have been reduced by more than 40 per cent from 1980 levels. That is a success story.

The 1985 Helsinki protocol set the foundation for the Canada-United States air quality agreement.

The fact of the matter is that sometimes, very complex international agreements can make a difference and do make a difference. Canada wants to remain a leader in acid rain control and that is why we signed a new protocol in Oslo yesterday.

This international agreement was signed following extensive consultations with the territories and the provinces.

I am very pleased to report that the international negotiators have adopted an important concept developed by Canadian scientists from Environment Canada. This new concept which was adopted in Norway is that of critical levels.

What this means in simple terms is that beyond a certain level, sulphur dioxide emissions become harmful to the environment. This level can vary from one part of the globe to another and, within a country, from one region to the next.

It is important that we are now moving to set sulphur dioxide emission levels based on science and regional targets within countries rather than just national limits. This allows Canada and other countries to direct their efforts to where the real problems exist. We believe that the provisions of the Helsinki agreement will lead to improving the effects of reduction of acid rain in the areas of Canada where the problem lies, namely in the seven eastern provinces of our country.

However, the Helsinki protocol, good as it was, will not end acid rain in the long run in about 10 per cent of Canada.

Canada has accepted to set a ceiling on emissions in that part of the country which requires a longer term commitment. We are therefore creating within Canada a sulphur dioxide management area, with specific goals attached to it, which take us well into the 21st century. In the long term, we want to bring sulphur dioxide emissions in the southeastern part of Canada down to an environmentally benign level. We will focus on the area most affected, that is to say the area south of a line going from the St-Lawrence estuary to the bottom of James Bay and on to the northern part of Lake Superior.

This new area will include southern Ontario, the southern part of Quebec as well as all of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the latter provinces being really seriously affected.

Our target for this area is sulphur dioxide emissions below 1.75 million tonnes beginning in the year 2000. This is an important breakthrough in international negotiations. The problem was that the national levels were arbitrary, particularly for a country as large as Canada.

Our environmental problems are not the same in every part of the country and this new agreement recognizes that. The new Oslo protocol also sets tough new standards for reporting and compliance by countries. This agreement is a major step forward but it is not the total answer to the entire acid rain puzzle.

The United States has not yet agreed to sign the protocol. The Government of Canada believes and hopes that this new agreement will act as an impetus to the United States just as the previous protocol opened the way to our bilateral treaty on air quality.

Indeed, I have scheduled meetings next month in Washington with the director of the Environmental Protection Agency in which we will be discussing very specific air quality issues like carbon dioxide emissions and in particular sulphur dioxide emissions to look at what bilateral actions we can take, not at the exclusion of multilateral activity but to complement it.

We have set new long term limits for the region of our country that produces sulphur dioxide flowing into Canada and the United States. We want the United States to take reciprocal action to reduce its sulphur dioxide flowing into Canada.

If there is one thing Canadians are unanimous about, it is that our country must take a leadership role on the problem of acid rain and the problem of air quality generally. By signing the Oslo protocol, we are continuing to do so.

May I conclude by saying that Canada's representative at the signing ceremony was appropriately the hon. member for Davenport who serves as the chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Anyone who knows the hon. member will know that he was one of the first Canadians to wear the pin which was so strongly identified with the coalition on acid rain activity that actually led to the first international agreement.

He has pushed longer and harder than any other member of Parliament for control on sulphur dioxide emissions. By identifying our problem area and agreeing to long term emission limits for our region, Canada is accepting its responsibility to protect our lakes, maple sugar producing trees, wildlife, fish, buildings, forests and above all, its citizens from the dangers of acid rain.

We will continue to work with concerned Canadians and provincial governments in the ongoing development of the national strategy on air issues. There are no overnight solutions but there are some solutions. I think on this file we have found some real solutions that have improved the situation and will continue to do so.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 14th, 1994]

The Department of Environment will continue to ensure that the regulatory impact analysis statements (RIAS) fulfil the Treasury Board requirements in terms of providing clear and concise information on:

1. the rationale for the environmental measure (regulations or economic instrument);

2. an assessment of alternatives to the selected environmental measure;

3. evaluation of both costs and benefits (quantifiable where possible);

4. the comments received in the course of the consultation period; and

5. how the environmental measure will be enforced.

Since the RIAS is a summary of technical and economic studies, any economic related information or questions could be answered by providing interested parties with these studies. These are available upon request and upon the publication of the RIAS in the Canada Gazette , Part I.

If any additional information needs to be clarified, the resource persons identified in the last section of the RIAS may be contacted.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 14th, 1994]

Environment Canada accepts these criticisms and is modifying its process. In the future, the process will involve early consultation with all stakeholders and partners (provinces, parliamentarians, industries, NGOs) in the development of options for a particular environmental issue.

Accordingly, Environment Canada has committed itself to implement a process that will fulfil the principles of: public participation, openness and transparency in the decision-making process; exploring options beyond traditional command and control regulations such as: market-based tools (trading programs, taxes and charges, financial incentives, environmental liability and deposit/refund systems); voluntary actions (guidelines and multistakeholder protocols); information provision (environmental labelling, technology development and transfer, government reports/inventories, citizenship); and regulations/guidelines/environmental quality objectives; and cost effectiveness, flexibility, and harmonizing environmental management regimes among federal and provincial governments.

Question No. 50-

[Forestry, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, took on that task at the request of the provinces, precisely to clarify, for the international market, existing practices in all Canadian provinces. I am convinced that the hon. member for Abitibi-Témiscamingue, among others, knows that the international market for forest products is important, not only for Quebec, but also for Canada.

[Human Rights, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to personally meet with the leaders of the democracy movement yesterday.

They congratulated the Canadian government and in particular the Department of Foreign Affairs for the work we were doing in assisting them in getting their case brought to the United Nations through the auspices of the human rights commission headed by Mr. Ed Broadbent in Montreal; for the strong stand we have taken in ensuring that no direct government assistance goes to the Government of Burma; and for promoting at the ASEAN meeting that is going to be coming up very shortly a renewed call for the return of democratic government in Burma.

[Human Rights, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the first part of his question, the member is making a request on behalf of democratic peoples who are fighting for the return of democracy in Burma? Do I understand him correctly?

I met their leaders yesterday, and they asked me just about the opposite of what the member is asking today. They asked that financial support be granted not to the government but to non-governmental agencies. The Canadian government offered the democracy movement the resources of the Human Rights Commission, here in Montreal. We are, of course, aware of their request and are taking it into consideration.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be designated as the committee referred to in section 139 of the Canadian Environment Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to lead off this debate in Environment Week on the referral of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The review itself is required by provisions of the act passed by Parliament in 1988. By moving this motion today our government is meeting our legislative duty, but we are also meeting another duty with this motion. We are keeping a promise we made to Canadians in the red book to give parliamentary committees more power in policy development and to allow members of Parliament more say in the development of laws that affect their constituents.

This motion makes no reference to the mandate, the reason being that we have decided to let the parliamentary committee draft its own mandate. The committee will have the latitude to decide on its own the scope of its review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government will not be recommending an approach. This will be for the committee to decide.

We will not force the committee to choose from a series of options. We want members from all political parties to play a legitimate role in protecting our country's environment.

The review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the first statutory review of an act undertaken by a parliamentary committee since the election. The Minister of Health and I who have joint responsibility for this legislation believe this is an excellent opportunity to provide individual members of the House of Commons with a greater voice in drafting our laws. This is an innovative approach, an experiment which we are confident will bear positive results.

The Minister of Health has occasionally had some differences of opinion with Bloc and Reform members, just as I have had, although I must admit that I have been impressed with the keen interest of the committee members, regardless of their political affiliation, in environmental protection. I know that the committee's contribution to the process will be quite significant.

I cannot begin to count the members of our Liberal caucus who have shown tremendous enthusiasm for, and extensive knowledge of, the issues.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was passed six years ago to respond to a number of concerns: the need to control toxic substances; the need to prevent environmental harm; the lack of coherence among federal laws; and the inadequacy of enforcement.

Since the passing of the act six years ago our understanding of the importance of sustainable development and biodiversity has increased dramatically. Throughout Canada and indeed the world there is an increasing desire to move from merely controlling or cleaning up pollution to preventing it in the first place.

Just as there is a heightened awareness that economic and environmental policies must be integrated, so there is a new appreciation that we must take an ecosystem approach to issues of air, land, water and living organisms. There is a widely held commitment to link issues of environmental health with issues of human health. There is a range of new international agreements to take this into account, agreements which affect the environmental health of our planet and more particularly the health of human beings. They must be considered when we review national legislation.

I believe there is a new-found willingness among all levels of government in Canada to get our own act together through proper environmental practices and elimination of duplication and waste.

The Canadian public, the people of Canada, are demanding more information and more say on environmental protection. Green consumers are prompting the development of green technologies and green services, and those technologies and services are leading to exciting new possibilities for Canada in the realm of sustainable development.

The review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will allow a great opportunity to consider all these important new developments, in particular pollution prevention.

[Translation]

The parliamentary committee will give the provinces and territories, ecology groups, industry, labour unions, workers, natives and all Canadian citizens an excellent forum in which to voice their opinions of the handling of current environmental protection issues.

With this goal in mind, the committee will hear from Canadians, who will also have the opportunity to submit their views directly to their members of Parliament. You are undoubtedly aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has made remarkable progress in harmonizing environmental management practices in our country.

This work is the final stage in the parliamentary review process. Through the invaluable cooperation of provincial environment ministers, we have eliminated some instances of duplication which are costly to the taxpayers, which drive responsible companies crazy and which make it virtually impossible to penalize polluters.

The success of the CCME will be a great inspiration to the parliamentary committee as it goes about its work. However, I want to make myself very clear. This parliamentary review will not stop the government from following up its red book commitments.

In our view, these commitments lend support to the work of the committees and reflect the desire of all Canadians to enjoy a prosperous economy and a healthy environment.

In fact, only yesterday we announced an expanded plan to protect North America's wetlands that will benefit wetlands species as well as the communities depending on wetlands for their livelihood.

The Minister of Industry and I are now working on an environmental industries strategy. The Minister of Finance has also undertaken with me a full review of obstacles to sustainable development and a study of new economic tools likely to promote good environmental practices.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has already announced major Canadian contributions to environmental initiatives around the world.

All of these actions and others we have taken and will take are a sincere effort to make sure that we promote the twin goals of improving our environment and our economy. The government is acting quickly in areas where we believe action must be taken, but none of our actions should preclude the parliamentary committee from suggesting realistic improvements. All members of Parliament clearly want the government to take measures which safeguard the environment, create new jobs and encourage national and international co-operation.

In that spirit of co-operation, this summer I will be seriously reviewing the recommendations of the parliamentary committee for the federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I have already had some preliminary discussions with the chair of the committee on that particular issue and we are encouraged that we will move quickly on a number of the recommendations.

Today, I am also pleased to table an outline of the issues to be considered by the committee. This document sets out in simple and objective language a rather exhaustive list of the concerns expressed about our Environmental Protection Act. It also summarizes a number of major developments that occurred in this country and abroad since our current law was adopted.

This document should give interested members and other Canadians a general idea of the range of problems to be taken into account if and when we decide to amend the Environmental Protection Act. It should not restrict in any way the issues that the members will want to examine. In fact, officials from the Environment and Health departments will be on hand to provide the committee with documentation on any other subject it deems important. Environment Canada and Health Canada employees will be there to help the committee as it sees fit.

To be a further help to the committee, the government will provide members with an independent assessment of the administration of the act. The committee will have an opportunity to consider a variety of mechanisms to advance pollution prevention, from voluntary actions to market based concepts, to mandatory rules.

There have been important international changes since the act was first introduced, from the climate change convention to the convention on biological diversity, to a number of other international agreements. Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the scope and complexity of these recent

international agreements and how they should influence changes within Canada.

The committee will be free to examine whether there are alternatives to court action in order to obtain speedy and effective results for obeying the law.

I know members of Parliament will not shy away from the thorny issues. From coastal zone management to environmental protection on reserve lands, in tackling these issues I know members of Parliament will listen first and foremost to the people who are affected by those difficult issues, be they representatives of First Nations, representatives of resource management, or others.

The government sincerely wants to hear the committee's advice on major pollution prevention issues, from prevention plans to the right of citizens to be informed, to technical assistance.

The parliamentary committee will probably want to consider seriously whether we can do better in preparing for and preventing environmental disasters.

Members have good ideas, and so do other Canadians. We want to listen to them. We want the parliamentary committee to make recommendations to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and recommendations are more than welcome.

Pollution prevention and sustainable development must remain national objectives. Our standards must be fair, firm and enforceable. The review of our environmental legislation must be an open and transparent process. We must find ways to give the public better opportunities to be heard and to hold governments accountable for their environmental decisions. We must also find ways to move from an approach based on reaction and restoration to one focused on the prevention of environmental problems.

The committee will be free to tell the government how it thinks we can encourage people to make responsible environmental decisions, thus protecting us for generations to come.

The government's only requirement is that the committee report back to Parliament within the next 12 months so we may have an opportunity to respond to its report and to act on it forthwith.

Members of Parliament are of course free to criticize the government and I know they will at any time. However I am sure that when we launch this initiative with the committee of the environment on sustainable development, the committee members will take this initiative to work together to produce a world class review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is an issue on which we have a real chance at winning a better future for our children.