Bill Gilmour

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, basically my colleague has reviewed our party's position. I would like to trace how the Canadian Environmental Protection Act came to be and some of the problems we have had with the bill as it moved through the House.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was originally brought to the House in 1988. Part of that legislation, which I think was extremely helpful, indicated that in five years time the bill would come back to the House for review. That is what happened. Unfortunately it has taken about five years to reach today.

In Bill C-74 in the last parliament the government brought forward what it thought was the answer to reviewing CEPA. It brought forward some amendments. There were some flaws in that bill and it never reached the House in its final form. In this parliament the government again brought forward the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In the view of the Reform Party it was a well balanced act. It looked after the needs of Canadians as well as the needs of a healthy environment and the needs of industry. It was a well balanced act which then went to committee.

The problem was the make-up of the committee. If either side of an issue, either the hang them high side or the other side, is loaded in any committee, the result will be skewed legislation. If the fisheries committee is loaded up with a bunch of fishermen there will be a skewed result.

Unfortunately there was not a balance in the environment committee. There were 560 amendments before the committee in an attempt to bring the legislation back to where it was in Bill C-74, which did not pass in the last House. All of us in the House have spent thousands of hours collectively in committee dealing with the bill.

When it came back to the House it was a bill that even the government could not live with. Another 235 amendments were introduced at report stage, with which we dealt yesterday and in the weeks before, to bring the bill back to basically where it was when it was introduced over a year ago. This involved a lot of time and a lot of energy.

This is not a shot at any of the people on the committee, but I think it is a shot at the government. A requirement of committees should be balance right across the board. Whether it is fisheries, justice or environment, the make-up of a committee should be balanced. In my view the environment committee was not balanced, which caused excessive hours of work on the part of all members and staff.

The staff behind the scenes basically spent a year keeping this process going. It was extremely frustrating at times for all of us. I would hope that in the future this could be avoided by having a balance of each committee across the spectrum.

It was unfortunate that yesterday there had to be time allocation on this bill. We were already at the seventh group of motions. We could have had eight. There were only eight groups. Basically it could have gone through. It is unfortunate after all the time we have spent on it that we did not have the opportunity to at least voice our opinions in the House. Then Canadians could have heard the different views and aspects each member had.

When my colleague was talking about the graduation ceremonies, he commented that most Canadians are environmentalists. The younger people are much more environmentally friendly and environmentally conscious than my generation. This is healthy.

We have a grand country. We need to look after it. This bill does that. Three of the five parties in the House will support the bill this evening I believe. It is a bill that in my mind hits the balance. I know others will say that it is not a balance. We can have a vibrant and healthy environment and a vibrant and healthy economy. They are not independent. They can be together. That is what this bill does.

In conclusion, we will support the bill this evening. It has taken a long time to get here. As I said at the beginning, one of the strong points of the last bill was that it came back to the House. This bill will also come back to the House in seven years. There will be an opportunity to refine it and to move it along so that it remains timely and current.

The member for Davenport has initiated a very timely review on pesticides. Part of the problem is we are dealing with pesticides that were registered 30 years ago and are out of date. By coming back to the House in seven years the bill will move with the times. It will be current.

We support the bill. We look forward to seeing its passage through the Senate and becoming law.

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

moved:

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-32, in Clause 188, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 136 with the following:

“phasing out the export of hazardous waste for final”

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-32, in Clause 188, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 136 with the following:

“disposal to a destination other than the United States, the Minister may require an export-”

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

moved:

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-32, in Clause 176, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 128 with the following: a ) recommend to the Governor in Council that the Minister be given authority to publish a notice under subsection 56(1);”

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

moved:

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-32, in Clause 166, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 121 with the following: a ) recommend to the Governor in Council that the Minister be given authority to publish a notice under subsection 56(1)”

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-32, in Clause 176, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 20 on page 128 with the following:

“laws or does not do so, the Minister shall recommend regulations to the Governor”

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

moved:

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-32, in Clause 118, be amended a ) by replacing line 1 on page 88 with the following:

“118. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the” b ) by adding after line 32 on page 88 the following:

“(2) The Governor in Council shall not make a regulation under this Division in respect of nutrients if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the regulation regulates an aspect of nutrients that is regulated by or under any other Act of Parliament in a manner that provides, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, sufficient protection to the environment and human health.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-32, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 35 with the following:

“176.1(1) applies, provided the Minister has been authorized by the Governor in Council by virtue of paragraph 166(3)( a ) or 176(3)( a ) to publish that notice.”

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

Madam Speaker, there are six amendments in Group No. 6. Five of them are from the NDP and one is put forward by Reform.

Our amendment, Motion No. 38, deals with the definition of endocrine disrupters in clause 43. When we talk of endocrine disrupters many Canadians today are still uncertain as to what they are. This is for a very good reason. Hormone disrupters is a relatively new concept that has only come to light in recent years. It is still a matter of intense study and research. Hormone disrupting substances were first made popular by Theo Colborn in his book, Our Stolen Future , published around three years ago.

Hormones are produced and released into the blood stream by a variety of glands. Hormones are essential for regulating many of our biological processes. They guide the development of sexual characteristics, the immune and nervous systems, the brain, and behavioural characteristics.

Our hormones and our glands together make up our endocrine system. That is what we have been talking about: the endocrine system, our hormones and our glands. Hormone disrupters allegedly disrupt the endocrine system and may cause birth defects, cancer, genetic damage or even death. This is now a matter of international study and research.

As I stated when addressing the Group No. 4 amendments, when Bill C-32 was originally tabled in the House it contained a definition of hormone disrupters which was consistent with the internationally accepted definition. This working definition of endocrine disrupters was adopted by the OECD in the United Kingdom in December 1996.

Unfortunately some members of the standing committee voted to come up with a new definition of hormone disrupters. This new definition puts Canada at a disadvantage as we will be out of step with the rest of the world. Canada should move forward in unison with the rest of the world to tackle key emerging endocrine issues. However, as our definition will be inconsistent we will not benefit as well from research and studies conducted elsewhere. Similarly our results and experience will not benefit others in the international community. Canada will benefit little, if at all, by going on its own in this very serious issue.

In conclusion, there is one significant amendment in this group which must be considered, and that is to ensure that Canada's definition of endocrine disrupting substances is consistent with that of the rest of the world.

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

moved:

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-32, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 24 on page 26 with the following:

““hormone disrupting substance” means an exogenous substance that causes adverse health effects in an intact organism or its progeny, consequent to changes in endocrine function.”

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are 10 amendments in Group No. 4 which deal with several issues. One of the issues is cost effectiveness.

Motion No. 9 proposes to amend the bill to reinsert cost effectiveness into the definition of the precautionary principle. The internationally accepted definition of the precautionary principle was endorsed in Rio by over 150 countries including Canada. This Rio definition of sustainable development states the following:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

This definition is now clearly recognized as a fundamental tenet of international environmental law. The government response stated that this definition of the precautionary principle would be incorporated into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

When Bill C-32 was tabled in the House the Rio definition of sustainable development including cost effectiveness was included in the bill. However, when the bill went to the standing committee some committee members voted to change this internationally accepted definition by removing all references to cost effectiveness.

Dropping cost effectiveness from the precautionary principle will cause major problems for the future for both government and industry. Industry must be able to implement sustainable development measures and remain competitive and profitable.

Our approach to the environment must be balanced. We need a strong and health economy to take concrete action to protect our environment. These two work hand in hand. Simply put, if the money is not there, we cannot and will not take action.

When there is no scientific certainty, which occurs in many cases and is the essence of many voluntary agreements and MOUs which the government has signed with industry, industry will take cost effective actions to protect the environment. However when science provides a clearer picture and demonstrates that damage can occur then more onerous measures are considered and will be applied.

The precautionary principle allows Canadians to proceed with caution in the interim phase. However when we eliminate cost effectiveness from the equation it is likely that we will lose the voluntary commitment of industry, which is critical to the continued protection of the environment.

One of the reasons Reform opposed Bill C-74 in the last parliament was the fact that the old CEPA bill would have made it too difficult and costly for industry to implement realistically. This is not a question of industry or the environment. It is a question of what is in the best interest of all Canadians. The environment is not a black or white issue. It is grey. Protecting the environment affects all Canadians.

I am pleased to note that the government supports our position on sustainable development and has proposed an identical amendment to Reform Motion No. 9 with Liberal Motion No. 8. However I am concerned that the government has failed to reinsert references to cost effectiveness that were contained throughout the bill when it was originally tabled in the House. These sections were critical to the delicate balance which was struck when the government consulted with industry and environment to draft Bill C-32.

When Bill C-32 was originally tabled in the House cost effectiveness was incorporated into a number of sections of the bill including administrative duties, information gathering provisions and pollution prevention planning. Some members of the standing committee voted to eliminate these sections on cost effectiveness from the bill. These amendments will not promote greater environmental action or attention. They will not create greater financial resources for government and industry to take action because Canadians simply do not have the means to take action beyond what is reasonable and cost effective.

In fact these amendments to the act may backfire by creating a reluctance for partners to sign agreements that are neither cost effective nor realistic. Without these amendments chances are that we will see less, not more action.

Our Motions Nos. 10, 16 and 47 in this group propose to address this concern by reinserting cost effectiveness into the bill. Bill C-32 must integrate the principles of sustainable development including environmental, economic and social considerations.

Moving through this group of amendments, our Motion No. 18 contained within this group proposes to eliminate a new section in the bill that was added in committee. The section which we are proposing to eliminate simply makes little sense and opens the bill to gross misinterpretation. This sections states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the taking of any action to protect the environment or human health for the purposes of this Act.

This is simply far too open ended. Our amendment proposes to reinstate the original clause put forward by the government when Bill C-32 was tabled in the House more than a year ago. The original section provided legal direction as to which legislation would take precedence if there were a duplication between acts which provide for the protection of the environment and human health. When this section was removed it eliminated the decision making mechanism from the act.

As well, Motion No. 22 in this grouping put forward by the NDP proposes to integrate a new definition of hormone disrupting substances into the definitions of the act. We will not support this amendment as the proposed definition of hormone disrupting substances is inconsistent with the internationally accepted working definition originally proposed in the legislation. The internationally accepted definition is:

Hormone disrupting substance means an exogenous substance that causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, consequent to changes in endocrine function.

We have put this definition of hormone disrupting substances forward in our amendments to the bill and therefore will not support Motion No. 22.

Motion No. 23, also put forward by the NDP, proposes a definition of recyclable material in the interpretation section of the act. The proposed definition reads:

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

Anything can be interpreted as having use or value. This definition of recyclable material is clearly unacceptable. It is too broad and open to be interpreted as meaning any thing or any substance.

Motion No. 24 also proposes a new definition in the act where it proposes to introduce a definition of waste. The proposal was to define waste as 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. Similar to Motion No. 23, the proposed definition is far too vague and far to open-ended. Such definitions are redundant as they serve absolutely no purpose when they are so open to interpretation. These amendments serve little purpose in fulfilling what is the intended mandate of the legislation.

We do not support amendments to the bill which extend the application of the bill to deal with all waste, particularly when dealing with exports. Our amendments to the bill propose that the section of the bill dealing with export of hazardous waste be limited to just that.

There is one item from this group of amendments that must be addressed and that is the inclusion of cost-effectiveness throughout the bill. I believe this is critical and hope members from all sides of the House will give this issue serious consideration before voting.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian spy agency CSIS has come under criticism on several instances over the past few months, yet the inspector general position, the watchdog who oversees CSIS, has been left vacant for over a year. When will the government fill this post so Canadians can see that CSIS is not left to do just what it pleases?