Bill Gilmour

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

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-32, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 30 with the following:

“respecting the cost-effective use of the powers provided for”

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

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 3 with the following:

“postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environ-”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 3 with the following:

“(a.1) take cost-effective preventive and remedial mea-”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 4 with the following:

“coordinated and cost-effective manner; and

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 14 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(m) and (n), if this Act does not provide for the avoidance of duplication where measures can be taken under this Act and under another Act of Parliament to address a matter affecting the environment or human health, the Minister, the Minister of Health where appropriate, and the minister responsible for the other Act will jointly determine whether the measures that can be taken under the other Act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter.”

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

Madam Speaker, for those people who have just tuned in, we are debating Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There were over 560 amendments in committee and another 235 that have come before the House at report stage. The bill has had more amendments than any other bill in many years.

We are speaking to Group No. 3 amendments. There are eight amendments in this group. They deal largely with residual powers and the use of toxic substances. The Reform Party put forward three of the eight amendments. There is a fair bit of overlap between our amendments and those proposed by both the government and the Conservative Party.

Our Motion No. 6 deals specifically with concern over reference in the bill to the use of toxic substances. It ensures that the focus in the bill is on management rather than on the use of toxic substances. The focus of the federal government has consistently been on managing toxic substances rather than on their use.

It is important to note that it is the improper management and release of toxic substances which result in adverse effects on human health and environment. This is a cause for public concern and government action, not the use of these substances.

I can use lead as an example. Lead is on the toxic substances list. When it is used improperly, such as in gasoline, in paint and in lead shot used to kill birds, management needs to ensure those practices do not happen. Lead in keels of sailboats, in weights for divers or in car batteries is perfectly safe. It is the management of these substances that this legislation should deal with.

Concerning use separately from the improper release or exposure to toxic substances derogates from the risk based principles which are the foundation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The preamble was amended in committee to change the focus and the direction of the act.

Our amendment returns the preamble to the original language proposed by the government when Bill C-32 was tabled in the House. We believe that the act should retain the government's clear policy to control releases.

Motion No. 6 will ensure that the approach contained within Bill C-32 is consistent with toxic management strategies already incorporated and pursued by the international community in its risk reduction activities.

The government amendment, Motion No. 7, only partially addresses the same section and touches on concerns regarding the use rather than the management of toxic substances. Our amendments, Motions Nos. 137 and 149, both deal with concerns regarding residual powers.

Our Motions Nos. 149 and 137 propose to empower the governor in council so that it can ensure parliament provides sufficient protection of the environment and human health. When Bill C-32 was originally tabled by the government it contained proposals which established that matters of co-ordination between different departments were to be determined by cabinet. These amendments were accepted by the standing committee in all sections of the bill except for two, sections 106 and 115 which deal with biotechnology.

The committee amended these sections so that the environment minister, and where appropriate the health minister, could determine matters of co-ordination. Our amendments propose to return the section originally proposed by the government when Bill C-32 was tabled in the House. This is consistent with the other sections within the bill.

We propose that the governor in council or cabinet, rather than the Minister of the Environment or Minister of Health, should determine whether there is overlap between departments and ensure that interdepartmental overlap and duplication are avoided in clauses 106 and 115. Clearly if the weight of significant decisions falls on cabinet throughout the bill, it should also consistently deal with areas of biotechnology.

We are pleased to see that the government clearly supports our amendments as it not only proposed the original section that we support but tabled Motion Nos. 138 and 148 which are almost identical to our Motions Nos. 137 and 149.

Our amendments address concerns that were brought to us by many parties. We listened and we acted on these concerns and introduced our amendments. Unfortunately, the Conservative party has missed the mark on its Motion No. 139, which similarly attempts to amend the same clause that Reform does in our Motion No. 137.

However, the member for Fundy—Royal has proposed to retain reference to the ministers rather than cabinet as most of us agree is far more suited to this degree of decision making. Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendments of the Progressive Conservative Party.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that our amendments aim to ensure that Canadians have clear, effective legislation to prevent pollution and protect the environment and the human health of Canadians.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has raised taxes 60 times and has increased revenues by $40 billion yet at the same time it has cut millions from the RCMP budget.

Now there are only five vessels patrolling the entire coast of B.C. Patrol vessels in my riding are only operating every second week.

In Port Alberni two RCMP officers are leaving the detachment and will not be replaced. Special projects have been terminated. The three man drug squad has been put into general policing.

Last year all overtime was suspended. A drug squad that was working on a big case put in so much overtime that they had to shut them down for over four months because they could not pay the overtime. Informants are being paid with cigarettes and IOUs. Now the sources have dried up because there is simply no more money.

Clearly it is time for the government to make the RCMP a priority and restore RCMP funding.

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

moved:

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 17 on page 87 with the following:

“Parliament in a manner that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, provides sufficient protection to the environment and human health.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended a ) by replacing lines 40 to 42 on page 78 with the following:

“(7) For the purposes of the administration of this section, the Governor in Council is responsible for” b ) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 79 with the following: a ) if the Governor in Council determines that the” c ) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 79 with the following:

“made under that Act, the Governor in Council” d ) by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 79 with the following: b ) if the Governor in Council determines that the” e ) by replacing, in the English version, lines 18 and 19 on page 79 with the following:

“ule 4, the Governor in council may by order delete”

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

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 45 to 48 on page 2 and lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the following:

“versity through pollution prevention and the control and management of toxic substances;”

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

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Group No. 2 amendments that, as the parliamentary secretary has said, deal mainly with the delegation of authority between provincial and federal governments.

These amendments have all been proposed by the Bloc and the government. Reform has no amendments within this group. However, we would also like to comment.

The Bloc amendments proposed by the member for Jonquière basically propose to give provincial governments a veto throughout the legislation. Reform has regularly been the first party to defend the interests of the provinces and when we are talking about federal interference, which these amendments would create, we certainly cannot support them. In environmental issues we have long called for the rationalization of laws between the provinces and the federal government. However, there has to be a working relationship. The provinces should not have a veto.

When the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development studied the roles of the federal and provincial governments regarding the environment, it concluded that it did not have sufficient information to sort out whether there was an overlap, where there was an overlap and where the changes were needed. In fact, the committee called for greater study on the harmonization as it went forward.

It is interesting that this week the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report which included a section on federal-provincial relations. The commissioner found that there was limited reference to environmental protection in the objectives. There were no stated requirements to assess the impact of agreements. Affected industries still face regulatory inconsistencies. There was no requirement for audit. There was no detailed accounting of federal funds transferred and there were weak reporting guidelines.

The commissioner also called for clear goals to protect the environment at minimal expense to the taxpayer, mechanisms to hold responsible parties accountable, regular reporting to parliament, analysis of risks before entering into an agreement, a federal back-up plan and a clear understanding of which government is responsible for what issues.

Clearly there is room for improvement in federal-provincial relationships and we will continue to call on the government to ensure that environmental laws are harmonized in the best interests of the environment as well as good government, both provincially and federally. However, the amendments put forward by the Bloc are not in the interests of federal-provincial harmonization. They are clearly an attempt to undermine the authority of Bill C-32, the act we are talking about today.

Reform supports the role of the federal government in establishing national standards for the environment in areas of federal jurisdiction, yet Bloc Motion No. 4 proposes to eliminate federal commitment to continue to demonstrate national leadership in establishing environmental standards, ecosystem objectives and environmental quality guidelines and codes of practice. We cannot in good faith support such an amendment.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act falls largely under federal jurisdiction, yet it also provides for provincial consultation and co-operation throughout the bill. However, as I have stated before, many of the Bloc amendments attempt to remove or weaken all references regarding the federal role in the environment, particularly when it deals with the administration of toxic substances.

Motion No. 43, for example, requires the agreement of the provinces when the minister gives notice requiring information for the purposes of conducting research, creating data inventories, issuing guidelines or assessing or reporting on the state of the environment. Although the co-operation of the provinces is highly desirable, this amendment is clearly unnecessary and is an attempt to undermine the bill. Many of the Bloc amendments are similar in nature.

Clearly it is important that the federal government work in co-operation with the provinces on environmental matters. However, we do not support the federal government overriding areas of provincial jurisdiction or making international agreements, such as the Kyoto protocol, without the consultation and consent of the provinces. Those are decisions that require the consent of all the provinces before an agreement is signed, not after.

We are all aware that the environment is a shared responsibility and environmental issues must be dealt with in co-operation and good faith, respecting the interests and jurisdictions of both governments. Obviously governments must work together in the interests of the environment. However, many of the amendments put forward by the Bloc are not in the interests of provincial co-operation. They are simply roadblocks to prevent the bill from realizing its goals, which are to protect the environment.

Often Bloc amendments propose provincial consent in areas that are clearly science based decisions. Such decisions should not be political. For example, Motion No. 81 proposes that the minister obtain the permission of provincial governments when amending the priority substances list and Motion No. 107 requires the ministers to have provincial consent when eliminating substances from the toxic substances list. Clearly these decisions should be science based. Decisions to remove substances from the priority substances list should be based on clear evidence that the listing of that substance is no longer necessary for the health of Canadians and our environment. Such decisions should be based on sound environmental practices and science, not politics. Science should be the determining factor.

We cannot support many of the proposed amendments put forward by the member for Jonquière as they would simply render the bill unworkable and weaken it. However, we find that Bloc Motions Nos. 160 and 205 merit support, so we will support them. These two amendments strengthen co-operation between governments by not just proposing that the minister offer to consult with the provinces, but that the minister consult with concerned provincial governments. These amendments apply to clause 197 when the minister issues guidelines respecting the prevention of, preparedness for and response to an environmental emergency, and for restoring any part of the environment damaged by or during an emergency.

There are 11 reasonable government motions which we will be supporting. These motions basically set up clear timelines for consultation. They propose a 60 day timeline for governments to take up federal offers of consultation. After 60 days the minister may act in accordance with section 2 of the legislation if the offer to consult is not accepted by any government or committee. This amendment gives the government clear guidelines with which to respond to the minister and allows the minister to move forward when talks are at a bypass.

In our view Group No. 2 would be weakened by many of the Bloc amendments which we will not be supporting. However, we will be supporting some of the government amendments that are timely. As there is such a grab bag we will take a piecemeal approach at the time of voting.

[Carriage By Air Act, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party basically agrees with the bill. It is very technical. As the parliamentary secretary stated, the amendments will implement the Montreal Protocol No. 4 of 1975 and the Guadalajara supplementary convention, 1961.

The international agreements amend and supplement respectively the Warsaw convention of 1929 and the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air of 1955, which are part of Canada's Carriage by Air Act. The 1929 and 1955 agreements establish documentary requirements and liability regimes for international air transportation.

As I said initially, this is a fairly technical bill and, in some ways, a housekeeping bill. The Reform Party agrees with its implementation, but we strongly disagree with the method by which it arrived in the House. It came from the Senate.

All of us in the House account to our constituents. At the next election, they will tell us whether they agree or disagree with us. That is democracy. This is the House that the bill should have come from, not the Senate. The Senate is unaccountable and not representative. In our view, all bills should originate in the lower House and then go on to the Senate.

To summarize, we agree with the bill but we strongly disagree with the method and the route by which the bill has arrived in the House.

[The Environment, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, try to tell the people who have toxic ooze coming into their basements that the process is working.

I have been asking questions for five years on this subject and getting very few answers. Five years, $70 million and we are no closer to a solution. There are the highest cancer rates in Canada and toxic goo oozing into basements.

When will the government permanently relocate the people of Frederick Street away from this toxic nightmare?