36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 235
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 1, 1999
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Post Corporation
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1010
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Victims of Crime
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage Act
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Children's Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Housing in Nunavik
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-32. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1030
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1045
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1050
1055
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1110
1115
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1130
1135
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1150
1155
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1210
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1215
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1230
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1245
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1300
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1305
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1310
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1335
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1340
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1355
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD POPULATION DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-55
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEUKEMIA
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 1999 GALIEN CANADA AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KHALID BUTT
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RURAL COMMUNITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WESTERN CANADIAN TASK FORCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GLOBAL VISION
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SKILLS CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUMMER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1415
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTORAL REFORM
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATURAL RESOURCES
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VACANCY
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE DOUGLAS HARKNESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1510
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1515
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-32. Third reading
|
1520
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1525
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1530
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1535
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1540
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1555
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1610
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
1615
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1620
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1635
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1640
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1655
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1710
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1715
1745
(Division 543)
(Division 543)
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
1750
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORKPLACE SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1755
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1800
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1835
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1840
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1855
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Correctional Service Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1900
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1905
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1910
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1915
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Environmental Protection Act
|
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1920
![V](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 235
![](/web/20061116190327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 1, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in
council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 76th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of some standing committees, and I should like to move
concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
table a petition on behalf of those who delivers mail in rural
areas. The petitioners ask that section 13.5 of the Canada Post
Corporation Act be amended to allow them to organize and bargain
collectively.
Canada Post Corporation is no better than the government. Over
the past few years, it has racked up huge profits on the backs
of the least fortunate, those who never have a chance to be
heard.
1010
This is why the present petition, signed by 113 persons, all
from Quebec, asks the government to amend the Canada Post
Corporation Act to restore some balance and allow these people
to earn a decent living.
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to present a petition from over 25 people in my riding
and other areas to end the legal approval of corporal punishment
of children by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code.
VICTIMS OF CRIME
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have 2,096 signatures which call upon parliament to enact an
amendment to the Criminal Code to enable victims of crime to lay
criminal charges in Canada when a serious criminal offence takes
place outside of Canada and when both the parties have Canadian
status.
MARRIAGE ACT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following
petition which comes from concerned citizens in my riding of
Lethbridge.
Decisions by the Supreme Court as well as recent pieces of
federal legislation have placed extreme stress on the traditional
definition of the family. The petitioners believe that the
traditional family is the building block of society and call upon
parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act
so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered
into between a single male and a single female.
The petition contains the names of 134 residents which brings
the total number of names that I have received on this issue to
1,483, which I understand is about 8% of the total received by
the government. I hope the government takes this into
consideration.
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour today to present a petition, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, on behalf of constituents in
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre as well as citizens from Govan,
Stoughton, Fort Qu'Appelle, Southey, Moose Jaw, Calgary, Edmonton
and other places out west.
The petitioners believe that no parent should ever lose legal
custody of their children by a legal process or be denied equal
time. They wish to maintain a meaningful relationship with their
children, unless found by due process to be unfit under the laws
of Canada. No parent should be allowed to obstruct a child's
relationship with the other parent or with other close family
members unless that other parent or family member has been found
by due process to be unfit.
The petitioners also believe that adversarial procedures should
be avoided in favour of a more co-operative approach in divorce
such as mediation and education in co-parenting.
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to pass
legislation as soon as possible incorporating these rights of
children and principles of equity between and among parents. I
support the petition.
[Translation]
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I table a petition from the Inuit community of Kuujjuaraapik, in
Nunavik.
The petitioners state that there are 16 to 20 people in three
bedroom dwellings in Kuujjuaraapik. The Inuit find the housing
conditions at Nunavik extremely distressing. They consider the
situation totally intolerable. It contributes to the high
incidence of tuberculosis, infectious diseases and social
problems.
The federal government must assume its obligations under the
James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement as far as housing in
Nunavik is concerned.
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by well over 1,000 residents in
my riding requesting four things. First, that the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development reconsider her claim
giving acres to the Caldwell Band in my riding. Second, that a
cash settlement be made for the Caldwell Band. They certainly
recognize the claim is there, but they believe that a cash
settlement is the direction in which to go. Third, that Treasury
Board not advance funding for the settlement of this land claim.
Four, that consideration be given to the concerns of the local
residents with regard to this settlement.
It is clear that there has been a tremendous amount of concern
in my riding. I certainly endorse this petition coming forth to
the minister and hope the minister will react to it.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 235 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 235—Mr. Eric Lowther:
With respect to the Canadian underground economy, (a) what does
the government estimate the size of this “non-reported”
economy to be in monetary terms, and (b) how much federal tax
revenue does the government estimate has not been collected due
to the underground economy?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): The Federal government is extremely concerned
about the underground economy. It attacks the fairness and
integrity of the tax system and makes it difficult for the
government to raise the revenue it needs to pay for the programs
and services Canadians want.
The government devotes resources to improve its understanding
of the underground economy so that efforts at combating it are as
effective as possible.
With respect to the size of the underground economy, the
government has closely followed the work of academics and economic
researchers. A key finding is that it is extremely difficult to
measure the size of the underground economy. This is not
surprising as by definition it consists of “hidden” economic
activity. While several approaches have been developed to
indirectly estimate this hidden activity, each has such serious
limitations, limited confidence can be placed in the resulting
estimates of the size of the underground economy and the
associated revenue loss to the federal government.
The government has used the information obtained within its
limitations to better focus its actions to reduce underground
activity and recover lost taxes. Revenue Canada`s actions in
respect of the underground economy are an integral component of
its balanced approach to tax fairness that dedicates resources to
both facilitate compliance for taxpayers as much as possible
while implementing responsible enforcement.
Revenue Canada has taken the following specific actions with
respect to the underground economy: In 1993, 1,200 additional
employees were assigned to work on the underground economy and
the 1996 budget provided resources for an additional 800
auditors. More recently, the 1998 budget introduced a mandatory
contract payment reporting system for the construction industry and
federal government contracts, to encourage the self-employed to
voluntarily report all of their income and to help Revenue Canada
better detect unreported income.
The government will continue to both monitor and fight the
underground economy through Revenue Canada`s underground economy
initiative, voluntary compliance programs and other enforcement
activities.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and
the protection of the environment and human health in order to
contribute to sustainable development, be read the third time and
passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that
there were times during the odyssey of this piece of legislation
moving through the House of Commons that I and a few of my other
colleagues wondered if we would ever arrive at this day.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you in particular, as well as
the whips of the House for the very efficient way in which we
dealt with the legislation at report stage last night.
Canada's first environmental protection act took effect in 1988.
After a five year review of that legislation in 1993 by the then
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, a
considered government response and two presentations of amended
legislation, we are close today to seeing a new Canadian
environmental protection act passed through this Chamber.
The Senate will take its turn to review the legislation before
it receives royal assent and is proclaimed law.
The current legislation which we are debating at third reading
today was introduced in March 1998 and, as many in the House can
attest, the challenges have been numerous and intense.
I would like to begin my comments at third reading today by
thanking, first, my parliamentary secretary, the member for
Burlington, for her diligence and commitment to the principles of
the legislation and the legislative process. Her assistance has
been invaluable.
Second, I thank all members of the standing committee for their
persistence, especially my own caucus members who have worked
with me to bring about some significant improvements to the
legislation I introduced in March 1998. Thanks to their work,
today we have a piece of legislation which is a significant
improvement over the currently used CEPA legislation, new
legislation of which we can all be proud.
Even the legislation we are debating today will be reviewed by
parliament in five years and will once again be improved, for it
is the role of ongoing science, the development of new insights,
technologies and values, and the dedication of committed
environment department staff working with society and
parliamentarians which will create the demand for new
improvements to legislation.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of my
officials in my department who helped us move the yardstick
forward on this CEPA legislation.
What is the CEPA legislation all about? It is about protecting
our environment and human health from the inherent negative
effects of some substances currently in use today. The new CEPA
legislation demands the screening of all 23,000 substances
currently in use in Canada. The screening is to be completed in
seven years.
For those substances found to be toxic, I will have the
authority to require the creation and implementation of pollution
prevention plans following a clear and predictable time allocated
process. For those few substances found to be dangerously toxic,
the legislation requires virtual elimination.
Today, of the 23,000 substances found in Canada, only 12 are
considered to be dangerously toxic. Some, such as DDT, have been
completely banned from use and production. Others, such as
dioxins and furans, PCBs and hexachlorobenzene will be slated for
virtual elimination.
The existing CEPA is based on the philosophy of pollution
control. However, we know that it makes far more sense for
industry to design its processes in ways that prevent pollution.
It makes more sense to find ways to avoid creating waste in the
first place than it does to figure out what to do with waste
after it has been created, and it costs less too. We want
Canada's industry to stop pollution before it happens.
1020
Bill C-32 is on the leading edge of environmental pollution
legislation worldwide. In fact, our review of similar
legislation in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany,
Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia shows that
none of them address virtual elimination. Only Bill C-32 commits
to the virtual elimination of the most dangerous toxic
substances.
Most of the 23,000 substances in use today in Canada do not
appear to pose any threats to our environment or health.
Synthetic chemicals and metals are a basic part of our world
today, essential to products which we all use. The precautionary
principle applied to their use is another important aspect of
Bill C-32. Too many substances have proven to have been found
too late to have significant and negative effects on the health
of people, other living creatures and our ecosystems.
Rachel Carson, in her book Silent Spring, drew public
attention to the links between toxic substances and their effects
on birds such as eagles and gulls. I note that Time
magazine recently ranked her as one of the most influential 100
thinkers of this century.
Science is at the heart of the new CEPA. It instructs us on our
environmental problems and guides us toward solutions. Under the
precautionary principle we will listen to the evidence that
science reveals, but we will not wait for full scientific
certainty before we take action.
Recognizing that Bill C-32 was imposing important and new
demands to achieve compliance, the federal government announced
$82 million in new funding in the budgets of the last two years
in order to support our commitment. Last week I announced $11
million in project research funding from a $40 million research
initiative looking into such key areas as endocrine disrupters,
persistent organic pollutants, metals in the environment, urban
air quality issues and the cumulative effects of toxic
substances. A further $42 million will help us to manage toxic
substances, including their assessment, regulation, tracking and
enforcement.
In summary, we are determined to protect the health and
environment of Canadians, for it is Canadians at the community
level who are most affected by pollution. This bill obligates
the government to provide more information to Canadians on
pollutants, using vehicles such as the National Pollutants
Release Inventory and the Environmental Registry on the Internet.
We are also expanding the mandate for increased public
participation in other ways in this bill. We want to open the
door for people to have the right to sue if there has been
significant harm to the environment and they feel the federal
government has failed to enforce this law. The legislation
incorporates whistle-blower protection to employees and gives
peace officer status to environmental inspectors.
This legislation enhances the intergovernmental partnership that
we have already built in Canada. It ensures that aboriginal
governments are participants in those partnerships and it values
the traditional aboriginal knowledge that they will bring.
The new CEPA provides me with the authority to set engine
emission standards for new vehicles and for other types of
off-road engines, such as lawnmowers, generators and boat motors.
Bill C-32 reflects the evolving state of Canada's international
environmental commitments. We will be able to step in to require
pollution prevention plans to control Canadian sources of
international air and water pollution. This legislation also
gives us the legal authority to fulfill our obligations under a
range of recent international agreements such as those that
address hazardous wastes and the import and export of hazardous
substances.
Through the bill's legislative process the government has
successfully introduced 90 amendments and fully supported 60
other amendments made by the committee. The report stage
amendments which I introduced are ones that serve to ensure
internal consistency of the bill. They would ensure a proper
degree of clarity throughout the act. They would respect
existing ministerial responsibility because protecting the
environment and the health of Canadians is a shared
responsibility.
All of our polling indicates that Canadians care deeply about
their environment, about the quality of the air they breath, the
water they drink, their land and healthy ecosystems.
1025
Bill C-32 will enhance Canadians' confidence in government
oversight, control and protection of their environment and health
from the effects of toxic substances. Our children's future
security and well-being and our environmental health will be
significantly improved with the passage of Bill C-32. In passing
this legislation we all can be justly proud of our contributions
to an important piece of legacy legislation that we leave as a
building block to a cleaner, healthier and safer future.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise in the House today to address Bill C-32. We
have been working on this bill for an awfully long time. There
has been an awful lot of input from the many, many people who
came forward. It is nice to see it come to fruition.
The environment issues facing us today are being addressed
somewhat in Bill C-32, which deals with pollution control and
human health. That encompasses almost every activity that takes
place on this planet. Every morning when we get up and take a
deep breath we are helping to pollute the air.
Regulation is needed and it has to be done in a balanced way.
That is something that we tried to do, to keep that idea of
balance.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: There will be two 20-minute segments.
The hon. member has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. Rick Casson: There were hours and hours of committee
meetings. We heard witnesses from across Canada in all sectors
of society. The clause by clause process was excruciating. I
believe there were 560 amendments. When the bill came to the
House there were an additional 230 amendments. The minister just
mentioned how many were supported by the government. Many of the
amendments were supported and presented by members of the Reform
Party.
All through this debate there have been predictions of dire
consequences if we do not toughen up the environmental protection
act. To some degree, I suppose, they are right, but I believe
that in many instances they go too far. A critical balance
between activity and regulation has to exist, because if it gets
out of whack either way it is harmful.
The bill gives the government the authority to research 23,000
toxic substances and to clarify what these substances do to
mankind, to life in general and how they affect human health. We
heard a lot about hormone disrupting substances during this
study, as well as endocrine disrupters, gender benders, or
whatever we want to call them. Our party supported more research
in this area. We really have to know what the effects of these
toxic substances are and we need to spend the time to find out.
To confirm problems we have to be able to find out the scope of
what is happening when an action is taken and what is the
reaction to that action. Canadians want to feel that government
is working toward solutions which will improve the environment.
That is something which all members of the House tried to work
toward in this bill. We did it in our own different realms, but
we all had the same focus in mind. That is what Canadians are
expecting from us and that is what they should expect. The
bottom line is a safer environment and sustainable development.
Getting a little more close to home, last Sunday morning I was
able to take a drive out to the country to have a look at my farm
and the crops. It is nice to be able to go out in the
countryside at this time of year to see what a wonderful country
we have. The crops were in. The ground had been tilled. It had
rained and it smelled fresh and just looked wonderful.
1030
I must acknowledge that there are many areas in Canada where
this has not happened. My colleague, our agriculture critic and
many others realize that there are areas in Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and other places in Canada where the crops are not in.
The ground is too wet and they are still struggling in that
regard.
To get to the point where the agricultural community can seed
its crops a lot of work needs to be done. The soil has to be
worked. Fertilizer has to be applied. In some cases chemicals
are applied. In all instances every operation that takes place
is very expensive. Chemicals and fertilizer are expensive.
For the best results the right amount must be applied. This is
done through soil testing and other methods. I believe this is
what needs to be taken into account when we talk about toxic
substances. If they are used, if they are needed in manufacture,
let us make sure the management of these substances is done
properly and there is the minimal amount of exposure to
Canadians.
Even in the preparation of the soil it should not be overworked
and put into a state where erosion can take place. This is
something we have learned over the years. We want to do as
little as possible to alter the natural state of our environment.
I believe, especially in the agricultural community, we are
starting to see the results of science, study, and tremendous
work such as that done at the Lethbridge research station. We
have started to produce more per acre than we have in years past.
Over time the products we are producing will be more
environmentally friendly and more useful to mankind.
A lot of care and planning is used, always with the goal in mind
of preserving if not improving our environment and producing more
and more on the same land base to feed a growing population. This
must continue and I am sure it will.
As lawmakers we need to support Canadians by having laws that
will assist our agricultural industry, our manufacturers and
others to provide food and the necessities of life in a way that
Canadians find acceptable and which reduces harm to the
environment.
We have always to keep in mind sustainable development, the
environment and human health because they have to be considered
in any development. As well social and economic aspects have to
be taken into account. It is important to take into
consideration the impact on society or on the development of a
decision.
We must use sound science and research to achieve laws and
regulations and we must back them up with enforcement. We have
learned through this process, through the environment committee
and witnesses, that in some areas our enforcement is in dire need
of a tune-up. It is not happening. It is not being done in a
way that is congruent or in any planned fashion.
Environment Canada needs to have a look at its resources and
direct them to the areas which need the most attention.
Departmental review and putting emphasis where the emphasis is
needed have to be done on an ongoing basis.
We have done a lot in the House recently, albeit not enough
because of the time allocation that has been put forward.
Hundreds of hours of committee work have been done. I would
suppose it involved millions of dollars in wages, work and
support for all the people who appeared before us and the people
who work for them. We must keep in mind the expectations of
Canadians. We need workable and enforceable regulations.
To be in Canada at this time of year is an absolute treat. We
live in a great country, especially in the spring as we see
things come to life, as we see wildlife such as the pair of geese
with their goslings that I saw the other day, as we see blooming
gardens, fruit trees coming around, crops going in, birds coming
back and singing in our communities. It is just great.
1035
It is important that we work in an effective manner to preserve
the country for generations to come. The member from the NDP
says consideration in the aboriginal sense is seven generations.
We have to look at how any action that is taken by their people
will affect seven subsequent generations. That is a good rule to
follow.
I attended a high school graduation on the weekend and saw the
excitement, the hopes and the dreams of the class of '99 as it
goes out into the world. I reminded the students that they
needed to pay attention to the environment.
The education aspect of environmental protection is important.
All Canadians have to be aware. I have great hope in future
generations. They are very much aware and will do a better job
than we and previous generations have done in preserving the
environment and making the country a far better place in which to
live.
All in all this time of year is very exciting. Canada is one of
the most pristine places on earth and we need to work to keep it
that way. We have made mistakes in the past and unfortunately we
may make mistakes in the future. We have to limit those mistakes
and continue to make headway. We have to be sure that we sustain
life and human health and develop in a way that accomplishes
that. Certainly young people are very concerned about the
environment. They are very much aware of it.
Different parties have brought forward different philosophies
which sometimes do not lend themselves to full co-operation but
allow for debate to be broadened to include how we as Reformers
and how other parties feel about the environment. The bottom
line is that we appreciate what we have in the country but we
need to work very hard to preserve it.
To make sure people understand I would like to indicate that we
support sustainable development, which is human activity that
combines economic, social and environmental considerations
without compromising the well-being of existing and future
generations. This is very important. We support the
participation of effective local communities in environmental
decision making.
We always talk about residual powers in the provincial and
municipal governments. They were discussed quite a bit in
committee. Who has the ultimate power? We feel that the federal
government has to be involved in the environment. We believe
constitutional challenges have stated such. However, the
provinces, municipalities and all Canadians also have a duty to
perform.
We support the rationalization of federal and provincial
environmental laws and the development of regional and national
environmental standards where appropriate. We also support
integration of social, environmental and economic objectives into
the management, philosophy, structure, procedures and planning
where the federal government has constitutional jurisdiction.
If we take what we believe in and support each party's
philosophy and policies, it will go a long way to creating a
tremendous environmental protection act.
We support federal leadership for a commitment to sustainable
development, including the creation of partnerships with
provincial governments, private industry, educational
institutions and the public to promote meaningful progress in the
area of environmental protection. This is where strong research
is involved. We must get everyone involved in getting the facts
laid out for Canadians to consider and in bringing government,
industry, community groups and municipalities into the fold to
come up with the best possible balances.
We also support the principle of establishing and regularly
reviewing standards based on sound science which are technically
and socio-economically viable.
1040
We also support the removal of administrative and regulatory
fiscal practices that discourage or detract from environmental
responsibility. I suppose that is coming at it from another way,
that all regulations should be looked at from the point of view
of their environmental impact and how they will affect the world
in general.
We also support the continuing development of commercially
viable practices for the management of the environment. We
support the development of reasonable endangered species
legislation, and I could go on.
In committee and in the House our party has tried to put forward
the best balanced approach which we feel will do the most in the
end for the protection of the environment.
In conclusion, this will be the last time I will get to address
Bill C-32 in debate. I will probably get involved in questions
and comments a little later. Going through this act has been an
experience I will never forget. Hopefully at the next review
there will still be a few of us here.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): 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.
1045
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.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to seek unanimous consent of the House to split my time
with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for the hon.
member for Jonquière to divide her time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the
third reading stage of Bill C-32.
We are at this stage because the government has decided once
again to put a gag on a bill, in order to push its interests
ahead of any others, without any consideration for the arguments
of the opposition parties.
It is very important to give an overview of the events leading
up to Bill C-32. On December 15, 1995, the Liberal government
proposed revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The proposal by Sheila Copps, the minister of the environment at
the time, was the government's response to the fifth report—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows very well that she
must not refer to a member by name, only by title. I hope that
she can comply with the rules in this regard.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This announcement by the minister of
the environment at the time was the government's response to the
fifth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development, entitled “It's About Our Health—Towards
Pollution Prevention”.
1050
At the time, the Bloc felt that a majority of the report's
recommendations supported the centralizing tendency of the
federal government in environmental protection matters.
The Bloc Quebecois refutes the theory of the double safety net
and contends that the environment would be better served if
responsibility for its protection were given to one level of the
government only.
The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that the provinces, including
Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of the natural
environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and
encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to
the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude
significant agreements with national and international partners
and have indicated their desire to find solutions to
environmental challenges and to contribute actively to
sustainable development.
Our position remains unchanged. Bill C-32 was tabled at first
reading on March 12, 1998. It renewed the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, formerly Bill C-74, which died on the order paper
with the last election call. It was, moreover, a promise in the
Liberal Party's red book.
At this stage of Bill C-32, it is important to underscore for the
federal government the reasons why Quebec refused to sign the
harmonization agreement of the Canadian council of environment
ministers. With what we have just seen in recent days, Quebec's
decision seems to validate them even more. Canada wants to go it
alone, without giving any thought to the responsibilities
afforded the provinces.
At the meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment of January 29, 1999, the Quebec minister of the
environment, Paul Bégin, refused to sign the agreement so long
as the conditions set by Quebec were not met by the federal
government.
These conditions include among others recognition of Quebec's
exclusive or at least primary jurisdiction in the areas assigned
to the provinces by the Constitution. They also include the firm
commitment by the federal government to pass the legislative
amendments required, and of course the adoption by Quebec and
the federal government of a bilateral agreement on environmental
assessments.
Moreover, Minister Bégin also stressed that the declared
intentions of the federal government as to the review of the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which would lead to a
significant increase in federal powers, contravene the spirit
and objectives of the environmental harmonization negotiation
process, particularly that of preventing duplication and
intergovernmental disputes.
This position of Minister Bégin reinforced the position taken by
the Bloc Quebecois in its dissenting report of December 1997.
On November 20, 1996, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment agreed in principle to the Canada-wide environmental
harmonization agreement and to two subsidiary agreements on
inspections and standards. The subsidiary agreement on
environmental assessments was negotiated during the winter of
1997.
This agreement was to enhance environmental protection in a
sustainable development context, while respecting each
government's jurisdiction, in a more effective way. It was to
have contained the general principles to be implemented more
specifically through subsidiary agreements.
The Bloc Quebecois has always supported harmonization between
the federal and provincial governments when it would serve to
eliminate administrative and legislative overlap and duplication
between the two levels of government.
We therefore supported environmental harmonization so long as it
did not serve to screen the federal government's continued
meddling in provincial jurisdictions.
1055
It is essential that harmonization recognize the exclusive or
primary jurisdiction of the provinces in the areas entrusted to
them by the Constitution. The spirit of harmonization must be
reflected in the changes the federal government is making to
existing legislation.
Several recommendations were made in committee to improve this
bill. I will mention a few in the course of my speech.
The committee recommended that ratification of the agreement and
the three subsidiary agreements be postponed, first until all
documents, namely the agreement and the 10 subsidiary agreements
proposed, were available so the public would have a real
opportunity to contribute and, second, until the committee's
concerns and recommendations had been fully considered.
The committee also recommended that the consensus requirement in
the agreement and subsidiary agreements be replaced with a
two-thirds majority vote.
With respect to these two recommendations, the Bloc Quebecois
believes it is premature for the federal government and the
provinces to endorse the harmonization agreement and subsidiary
agreements, and for the committee to report to the House of
Commons, because we have not had the opportunity to observe any
real desire on the part of the Liberal government to harmonize
with the other provinces.
It would be better to wait until the endangered species bill,
the fisheries bill and the Canadian environmental protection
legislation have been introduced. We will be able to fully
assess the harmonization agreement when considering these bills.
Also, before considering any new subsidiary agreements, it would
be better for the federal government and the provinces to deal
first with the three existing agreements on environmental
assessment, inspection and standards. In addition, we are
proposing that the agreements be ratified by a unanimous vote
instead of a two-thirds majority vote.
In another recommendation, the committee suggested that a
provision be included in the environmental assessment agreement
stating that it will not require any changes to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act.
The subsidiary agreement will also have to specify that the
objectives and requirements of the environmental assessment must
meet the strictest standards and must meet or exceed the
prescribed objectives and requirements.
This recommendation is contrary to the principles of the general
agreement, which states that governments may change their
respective legislation as required.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois believes that only the Quebec
environmental assessment process should be applied in Quebec.
The federal government's willingness to achieve harmonization is
supposed to be reflected in the legislation, and we consider
that Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and effectiveness of
materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water
destined for human consumption, does not reflect this spirit of
legislative harmonization between the federal government and the
provinces and represents another intrusion by the federal
government in an area under provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that several
recommendations in the Liberal majority report are contrary to
Quebec's historic positions in the area of federal-provincial
harmonization and that recent interference by the federal
government does not respect the spirit of the accord.
What the Bloc Quebecois deplores is that the federal government
refuses to give legislative expression to its good intentions
with regard to environmental harmonization and chooses instead
to hide behind the centralizing screen of the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Need I remind the House that consideration in committee of Bill
C-32 began in the fall of 1998 and concluded in April 1999?
1100
The bill was studied over the course of some 60 sittings, and
580 amendments were introduced. The Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development therefore broke a record
for the length of time any bill has been studied in committee.
The committee adopted about 160 of these amendments. All of
this work seems to have been cancelled out by a government that
is blowing with the wind, without any consideration for the
environment. As a result, the bill now before us is
inconsistent in many regards.
It must be kept in mind that many amendments were added in
committee, but this government has decided either to not even
consider them, or to alter their meaning and substance. It is
somewhat ironic to think that a process this lengthy has
culminated in a gag order from the government and major changes
to what was done in committee. It is clear that the government
has not respected what was done in committee.
I will now address the two main changes made to the bill at
committee stage, which were not respected by this government.
First of all, a new definition of virtual elimination in clause
65 has been adopted.
Clause 65 now reads as follows:
—virtual elimination means, in respect of a toxic substance
released into the environment as a result of human activity, the
ultimate reduction of the quantity or concentration of the
substance in the release below the level of quantification
specified by the ministers in the list referred to in subsection
(2).
This new definition allows the federal government to change the
limit according to the ongoing changes in scientific tests and
measurements. The ministers are the ones to draw up the list of
levels for each substance but they must take into consideration
all pertinent social, economic and technical factors.
We could see there was a problem of harmonization among the
various provisions in the bill relating to virtual elimination.
The new definition has not been uniformly applied to all clauses
concerning this issue. Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois proposed
amendments to respond to these inconsistencies in Bill C-32.
Second, the committee eliminated all references to the
cost-effective measures the government was to take under Bill
C-32. The committee based its decision on the fact that the
government did not want to explicitly define the word
“cost-effective” in the bill.
In the face of this legal void, the committee decided it was
simply preferable to eliminate the term, considering that, in
the context of sustainable development, it is understood that
governmental measures are to be cost-effective. In addition,
federal departments are already subject to Treasury Board policy
on the cost-effectiveness of federal regulations.
The Bloc Quebecois wanted to make changes to the bill, which
were not passed either in committee or at the report stage in
the House. One of the main changes concerned the systematic
presence of an agreement with the provinces prior to federal
intervention.
Moreover, under the original version of Bill C-32, the federal
government was going to act in accordance with the intent of
intergovernmental agreements. The Liberal majority softened this
requirement by adding the word “endeavour” before the verb “to
act”. The Bloc Quebecois maintains that the federal government
must always keep in mind the prospect of harmonization with the
provinces, to avoid duplication and overlap in the legislation
and regulations.
By trivializing federal-provincial harmonization agreements, the
Liberal government clearly shows that it lacks the will to
respect the jurisdiction of the provinces with regard to the
environment.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore proposed the deletion of the word
“endeavour”, as Bill C-32 currently stipulates, but to no avail.
At clause 9, the bill provides that:
9.(1) The Minister may negotiate an agreement with the
government ... with respect to the administration of this act.
However, the Liberal majority on the committee decided to make
this agreement subordinate to the new clause 9(9), which would
trivialize any future equivalence agreement with the provinces.
1105
Clause 9(9) reads as follows:
No agreement made under this section shall limit or restrict the
carrying out of any action the Minister deems necessary for the
administration and enforcement of this Act, including the
conduct of possible inspections or investigations.
With this clause, the federal government is giving itself the
powers to go over the heads of the provinces, even after
reaching an agreement with a province. This is totally
incomprehensible and unacceptable on the part of a government
that claims to want to work in partnership with the provinces.
While in theory Bill C-32 recognizes the environment as a shared
responsibility between the federal government and the provinces,
in reality, this bill does not delegate any power to any
province, including Quebec, which, of course, is contrary to
what true environmental harmonization between the various levels
of government should be.
Bill C-32 confirms that, with the latest supreme court ruling on
environmental matters, the federal government is trying to
broaden its powers in this area. Although the federal and
provincial governments share responsibility for the environment
under the Constitution, the Liberal government clearly wants to
subordinate the role of the provinces to that of the central
government.
The emphasis is on pollution prevention as a method of priority
intervention with the power to require pollution prevention
plans, which are mandatory for substances included in the list
of priority toxic substances and optional for others. A direct
partnership must also be developed between the federal
government and industrial sectors that are already partly
covered under Quebec programs, such as the industrial waste
reduction program that has been implemented in the pulp and
paper industry.
The measures contained in Bill C-32 will allow the federal
government to establish national priorities for intervention.
Therefore, the provinces will have no choice but to adopt
federal regulations, otherwise they will be forced to see the
federal government serve the same clientele.
The legislative and regulatory powers that the federal
government is giving itself are very important. While the
Liberal government constantly talks about its willingness to
work in partnership with the provinces, it nevertheless
institutionalizes its powers in order to play a paternalistic
role towards the provinces. That is one thing the Bloc Quebecois
deplores.
The Liberal government's claims about the importance of a
national approach to environmental protection are contrary to
the spirit of environmental harmonization. It is sad that the
supreme court is further contributing to the Liberal
government's centralizing tendencies.
Finally, and contrary to the Liberal government, which argues
the notion of the double safety net, two levels of government
acting within the same jurisdiction, the Bloc Quebecois feels
that this system diminishes the accountability of both levels of
government by seriously complicating the assignment of
responsibility.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill because, in addition
to imposing a centralist vision, the federal government is
making a grab for new powers and is interfering in provincial
jurisdictions, when what it should be doing is working to
further harmonization among the various levels of government.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I feel it is
rather special and significant to rise in this House during
Environment Week to speak to Bill C-32.
Bill C-32, which proposes to renew the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, is now at third reading. We are opposed to this
bill because it has all the aspects of a centralizing
legislation and neglects certain areas of jurisdiction we find
it very important to defend.
I will begin by congratulating the hon. member for Jonquière for
the work she has done on this issue. After 60 sittings, the
clause by clause study of the bill by the environment committee,
580 amendments were introduced and 160 of them passed. Much
work was done in the standing committee on the environment, but
with dubious results. One must wonder why so.
1110
Because only one-quarter of all those amendments were retained,
and in many ways the result has been a kind of patchwork.
The bill has its inconsistencies, but what is even more
troublesome is the lack of harmonization between the provinces
and the central government. This lack of harmonization results
in duplication and in overlapping legislation and regulations.
The environment is an intrinsic part of the lives of every
person in this country, for it affects us all.
Whether it be water, land or air, we all depend on these three
elements. Harmonization is necessary so that everyone may feel a
part of a large-scale project to make the environment healthier.
We have reservations about this bill because it denies the basic
principle whereby the more people, municipalities and provinces
involved, the greater the chances of interesting results.
The inconsistency in this bill leaves us perplexed, and I might
add that the lack of harmonization and of agreements with the
provinces may be very costly for the country. I am not inventing
this lack of agreements, because I read the commentary from the
Office of the Auditor General of Canada, which provides clearly
that federal-provincial agreements on the environment do not
provide the results expected. It basically says:
The audit revealed that key elements of agreements were simply
not implemented. In certain cases, the federal-provincial
committees that were to manage agreements were never set up. In
other instances, the federal government lacked the information
it needed on provincial activities in order to be able to
determine whether federal regulations had been applied.
So, where do we go with results like that? It is rather
embarrassing. In his report, the commissioner recommends that
Environment Canada assess existing environment agreements and
incorporate the lessons learned into new agreements.
The government has not advanced very far, if you want my
opinion, and the Bloc Quebecois recognizes that the
federal-provincial agreements on the environment are not perfect.
They must be improved. That is vital.
They are, however, an improvement over unilateral action by
Ottawa, as proposed in Bill C-32, given the benefits of
eliminating overlap and establishing a single window.
These are the recommendations of the Bloc Quebecois. They are
not to be found in text of the bill. These are good reasons to
oppose it.
I would like to continue my speech to cover three areas: the
agri-environment, biotechnology and air pollution. We are
trailing somewhat in agri-environmental projects, and I will
quote from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada documents to show
what the government is looking for in this area.
The document entitled “The Health of Our Soils” states in
essence:
In the context of sustainability—which is what the environment is
all about—land management means that the land is used so as to
maintain productivity without exhausting the resources or
adversely affecting the environment. This type of management
implies a change of mentality and attitude.
The soil should be
considered like a bank account. If we treat it like an
inexhaustible resource, that is if we constantly withdraw money
from our account, we will exhaust our reserves. On the contrary,
if we use appropriate stewardship and renew the resources used,
our account will continue to be balanced and to provide a good
return.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada supports sustainable land
management. Productivity, stability, protection and viability,
these are the pillars of the approach suggested to preserve our
land.
1115
We are proposing a comprehensive agricultural plan. What does
this mean? First, we should make an inventory of the operating
resources and practices, and then answer various questions.
These questions include the following: Does the farmer
participate in a government agricultural plan? From what source
does the farmer get the information on which he bases his
decisions? Does the farmer have resources that he is currently
not using? What obstacles impede the use of soil conservation
methods?
As for this year's proposal by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
with respect to soil health, I am delighted to say that Quebec
has already been practicing this for several years.
An example is the agro-environmental portrait of farms in Quebec:
17,937 of them responded to a request from their union to
analyse their operations. This represents 88% of farms invited
to participate. This is a first in Canada, in Quebec and in the
world. This is where the commitment to saving our farms, our
soil and our environment must begin.
By agreeing to answer questions about their practices, producers
have shown that they are genuinely interested in protecting
their resources.
Anyone familiar with this sector will know that farmers are not
necessarily thrilled about answering such questions. Farming
practices are always kept secret.
This response was an indication of a growing awareness that the
future of generations to come depends on each one of us. I keep
mentioning harmonization, decentralization and the need to work
together. This is the only way to obtain results.
The farms surveyed were those affected by the regulations on
reducing agricultural pollution, as well as apple growing and
greenhouse growing operations. This was a large step forward
and will be pursued. With results, one does not need to talk
through one's hat, but can implement specific measures that are
often very effective and much less costly.
I wanted to mention this project because I believe it is very
important. Some of the federal-provincial arrangements for
agriculture are very interesting. Minister Rémi Trudel said that
the agro-environmental plant health strategy support program was
developed as a result of the Canada-Quebec agreement on the St.
Lawrence Vision 2000 action program. This five year program has
a yearly budget of $2.5 million.
Its purpose is to support technology transfer and development
projects dealing with major crops, such as potatoes and apples.
Its goals are very straightforward: to reduce pesticide use by
50% and put 70% of cultivated land under integrated pest
control. This is a tall order.
Having worked in this field I know how difficult it is to
convince people to take part in this kind of initiatives. They
have to completely change their farming practices. However these
are concrete measures. Out of 49 projects submitted for 1998-99,
37 got accepted, and partners are contributing financially to
the study.
Projects are based on local needs and linked to strategic teams'
action plans. Because they are simple, these projects are
useful, and people get on board. They are called pesticide free
and pesticide reduced projects. They give a lot of visibility.
These technology transfer and development projects deserve to be
better known.
In Quebec we had the Green Plan and technology transfer
committees. In 1997 the Liberals did not renew the only program
through which the federal government was funding
agri-environmental projects.
The agricultural component of the Green Plan expired on March
31, 1997 and nothing replaced it. This is regrettable because
these initiatives produced very positive results.
1120
I said I would also address biotechnology, because the essence
of the Group No. 3 motions is to remove the powers of the
Department of the Environment and the Department of Health to
give the governor in council the exclusive responsibility for
decisions on biotechnology projects concerning animate
substances.
Biotechnology is on everyone's lips and a major source of
concern to many. Its results are often very interesting, but
sometimes also very worrisome.
In February of this year, the federal government decided to
renew its biotechnology strategy, which dates back to 1983.
Last April, the Standing Committee on Agriculture undertook to
hold hearings on agricultural biotechnology.
It subsequently tabled a report entitled “Capturing the
Advantage: Agricultural Biotechnology in the New Millennium”.
The fifth of its sixth recommendations addressed the necessity
for parliament to undertake a review of the Canadian policy on
labelling with the participation of all the stakeholders.
The official Canadian government response to the agriculture
committee was as follows “Canadian policy provides for consumer
choice by allowing food companies to voluntarily label whether
or not their products have been derived from biotechnology”.
By allowing free choice to everyone, we end up without a code of
ethics and also without labels for products derived from
biotechnology. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of a complete
re-examination of labelling policy, particularly where
genetically manipulated foods are concerned.
The applications of biotechnology are multiplying constantly and
at an increasingly rapid rate. We therefore feel it is
necessary to address this important matter more seriously, with
a view to keeping an eye on the changes that are affecting our
lives at present and those that will do so in future.
I do not know if my colleagues experience the same thing but,
almost every day, I receive letters from people in every region
of the country, including western, central and eastern Canada.
These people say “We realize that genetically modified products
in foodstuffs are here to stay. In that case, the label should
tell us what is in the food item, because we want to preserve
our health and the health of our children”.
I want to add something about biotechnology. There are some
rather disturbing things going on. Members are all aware of the
cloning of goats by a company called Nexia. Such cloning raises
once again the ethical issue relating to that procedure. These
goats were cloned by using a technique similar to the one used
with Dolly the sheep, in 1997. The same DNA was used in what was
the first stage to develop a spider silk called biostyl from
goat milk.
This scientific breakthrough generated admiration, but also
concern in Canada. It may mean that it is probably not that
difficult to clone human beings. Fortunately, we just learned
that Dolly is aging twice as rapidly as she should be. This may
make cloners think twice.
When Nexia officials appeared before the Standing Committee on
Agriculture, we asked them “Do you have a code of ethics? How do
you operate? Is there an international or national code of
ethics?” They told us, literally, that they were voluntary
members of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. This is like
saying “The humane society will give you an outline of the
course of action to follow. Comply with it”. This makes no
sense, from both a scientific and human point of view.
In my opinion, this makes for a rather dangerous situation.
1125
I will cut short my comments on this issue, because the hon.
member for Palliser already said a lot about biotechnologies and
I agree with the warnings he gave.
I now come to my third point, which is air pollution. I have
another document on the quality of the air that we breathe. I
did not get my information from just anybody. It is from the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, so we can all relate to
it.
This document deals with how we manage our lands and produce
food and fibres. This is not negligible in the context of air
pollution.
Atmospheric pollution has a direct effect on all plants and
animals on the earth, as does the climate, which governs
productivity, human activity and the arrival of catastrophes
such as droughts, floods and storms.
Some atmospheric changes
may be inoffensive or even beneficial to humans and plants.
However others are disastrous, and their negative effects will
be felt ever more frequently, unless we change our way of
managing our energy, our food and our fibres.
In Bill C-32, the government does not act on recommendations from
another federal government department, when in fact it should.
The government would be advised to refer to biological
agriculture. There are no codes yet on biological agriculture,
and I think they will be a long time coming.
I will close by mentioning another article which I read in the
document “Taking our Breath Away: The Health Effects of Air
Pollution and Climate Change” published by the David Suzuki
Foundation.
It contains some very interesting points, such as the following:
According to a recent opinion survey, pollution, including air
pollution, is Canadians' main health concern, and Quebecers are
worried about it most—
I am not inventing this, I read it in the David Suzuki
Foundation document.
as was demonstrated by over 800 people attending a recent forum
in Montreal.
Quebecers' interest in this area should not
surprise us. Air pollution and climatic changes make victims of
the people of this province and cost their health care system
dearly.
Air pollution kills prematurely some 4,000 Quebecers and
12,000 other Canadians every year.
Higher temperatures, climatic changes and the ozone layer are
the focus of the Kyoto commitments and underlie the changes that
we should be making.
I am not satisfied with the motions presented and passed with
respect to Bill C-32 on agriculture, biotechnology and air.
What we must remember is that the environment is not a
government matter, it is an individual matter. Without a solid
partnership and a solid harmonization agreement, we may not
achieve our objectives and the primary goal—that of saving the
planet.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to clarify our role as Canadians and to highlight the
whole journey of getting the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act to where it is now at third reading.
I would first like to say that we were quite discouraged with
government members during the voting last night and with Reform
members who voted with the Liberal cabinet in support of watering
down environmental protection in the country.
One of my hon. colleagues said that the youth of the country and
the world are very cognizant of the environmental damage that the
industrialized revolution and the industrial ways of living have
diminished our health and our environment. They are very
conscious of changes that have to be made. The youth are telling
us this.
We have received letters in these last few days and hours
telling us that a mistake was made last night in watering down
the environmental protection of the country.
Then an hon. member said that there was a mistake, that when the
standing committee was formed and the way it did its
parliamentary duties was overly environmental.
1130
To Canadians, the youth who are listening, environment is life.
We live off this land, off this water, off this air. If we do
not protect our environment, there is no future for us.
In industry, trade and manufacturing, people make their daily
profits while they pollute and put their garbage into our
environment. It impacts on us. If we want these people to sit
on our environment committee and empower it on a balanced
situation, future generations will struggle.
Our youth are environmentally conscious. They will dominate
this House of Commons. They will dominate all committees,
including the industry committee and the trade committee. Youth
are our future.
Last night we made a major mistake. We watered down this
country's basic environmental protection law by adopting
amendments that were proposed by industry. The Reform Party was
lobbied. The Liberal cabinet was lobbied. The parliamentary
secretary and the ministers were lobbied. They buckled and they
watered down our environmental protection act. It is the third
reading debate today and the vote will be held tonight.
I want to put some quotes on the record and I will submit them
to the Clerk. This letter which was circulated highlights the
key problems with Bill C-32 as revised by the committee. The
committee worked on this for years under public review. In its
report “It's About Your Health”, the standing committee made
its recommendations to strengthen pollution prevention, not
pollution control or pollution management, but pollution
prevention, to stop pollution.
This is what industry had to say about the committee's work:
Application of virtual elimination. For reasons that are unclear
to us, the Department of Environment proposed to the committee
significant changes to the virtual elimination construct
initially proposed in Bill C-32. The new construct changes the
virtual elimination definition so that it is now based on
achieving releases below the limit of qualification, and
incorporates two distinct measures to achieve virtual
elimination:
The release number should be set by the governor in council and
not by the ministers alone—
Virtual elimination planning based on achieving below limits of
qualification releases is faulty public policy as it is fraught
with operational uncertainty and would impose a huge regulatory
overhang without any demonstrable reduction in environmental or
health risks.
Virtual elimination is a working qualification that we can
continue to pollute to a measurable amount in this country. The
minister will allow these limits.
In the preamble of the bill we wanted to have a phase-out of the
toxic chemicals and toxins in this country. We wanted to phase
them out. We did not get that in the operational side of the
bill but we were successful in getting it in the preamble. The
front side of the bill says that we want to phase out eventually;
the operational side says that the minister recommends virtual
elimination.
What happened after the industry put its foot down in sending
out these documents is that “achieving virtual elimination” in
the bill has been taken out. It is only “limits of
qualification will be set by the minister”.
This country is in a loophole. Canadians want to phase out
chemicals and toxic substances. The government says we will
virtually eliminate. Industry says just set the limit and let us
continue to do our business. This whole issue of pollution
prevention has been eliminated, completely phased out from Bill
C-32 as it is before us.
I would also like to highlight that the integrity of the
standing committee has been tested not only by industry but by
this government and the minister.
The minister challenged us that in committee we should not change
major clauses in the bill. We made changes and she put forth
many amendments to repeal the changes.
1135
In terms of getting even, so to speak, she also put an amendment
that the next review of Bill C-32, the CEPA, would not be
exclusively done by the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development. The exclusive review
could be taken by the committee responsible in the other place.
The Senate could review the next bill if it is approved. That is
a major detriment.
I raise this issue for all hon. members, my colleagues to my
right, who speak on behalf of seeing an effective and elected
Senate. All members should be aware that the Senate does not
have the exclusive right. It does not have the democratic
representation to review these acts.
This country has a process for creating acts and laws. The House
of Commons standing committees have the first right to make
recommendations and review ministerial drafts. Then the bill
goes through this House before it goes to the other place. This
process could be sidestepped with the amendment that was
introduced last night and which is now in place. I draw this to
the attention of all parliamentarians.
Another issue I raised and which the hon. minister highlighted
was scientific certainty. Cost effectiveness was a major concern
for industry, that any measure taken to protect our environment
should be cost effective. The committee had eliminated this. It
was brought back in with an amendment by the Reform Party and the
Liberal cabinet. They want cost effective measures to ensure
that industry has the profit driven derivatives as a priority
over the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. Cost
effective was a major battle in committee and inevitably industry
won.
The other side of scientific certainty is aboriginal traditional
knowledge which is a bold inclusion, but there is an oversight.
We introduced an amendment yesterday which was defeated.
Aboriginal people are not defined in the bill. We put forward a
constitutional definition of who the aboriginal people are: the
Indian, the Metis and the Inuit of this country, but the
amendment was not approved.
A lot of the aboriginal people in this country have lived a
sustainable life on the land. Their intrinsic knowledge is oral
based. They know the plants, the animals, the waters and the
effects on the environment. All of this is an oral based
tradition. It is not a science based tradition. Giving that
equal weight is a bold move under CEPA. We encourage that.
A huge group of aboriginal people have been taken out of the
definition. The Metis have been overlooked under the Indian Act,
under the land claims and again under this bill. It would have
been an opportunity for them to contribute to the betterment of
our environment. We wanted to raise that issue.
Another amendment that was soundly defeated last night was the
protection of our children. We asked that CEPA consider the
child specific reviews, studies and assessments of the toxic
impact on our children in the school yards, at the beaches, in
the parks, in the many shopping malls and playgrounds they
frequent. These are child specific areas. We asked that
Environment Canada and Health Canada specifically study what
impacts those areas.
A child's growth is more vulnerable than that of an adult with
an immune system that is well in tact. Children are still
developing and toxins such as endocrine disrupters impact on
them. If they are exposed at the wrong time at the wrong place
the effects could be detrimental.
1140
Public participation is certainly a big section in this bill,
but the public right to know and the public right to sue have
been watered down because of industry's interests of cost
effectiveness. If any toxins were released into our environment,
the minister would have to prove the industry had knowingly
polluted before she could publicly sue. In terms of a loophole
somebody could simply say that they did not know they were
polluting. That would eliminate all the laws put forward in CEPA.
“I did not know I was polluting” could be a statement of
defence that would let every polluter off the hook. Any cost
recovery required by the minister would not carry any weight.
The issue of biotechnology was highlighted in the bill. Under
the committee process we empowered the environment and health
ministers to take effective decisions on biotechnology. It is a
growing and very cautious industry. It is also a very
non-transparent industry. Industry and government are at one end
of the issue and the public and consumers are at the other end.
Government has to protect the public and the consumers, not just
the needs of industry. We wanted the Minister of Health and the
Minister of the Environment to look at the public interest.
In terms of biotechnology we are going to be exposed to
organisms that have been altered genetically in our food, in our
environment, in our bodies. The wish of the industry lobby all
along has been to have these issues considered and the decisions
made by the governor in council. Then industry would have a small
group of people to lobby. The cabinet ministers are a small
group and they would be an easy target, but to lobby the 301 MPs
in this House is too much of a task. This parliament has lost its
power by giving the governor in council too much decision making
on biotechnology which is a growing issue.
In terms of the whole issue of the governor in council and the
industry lobby, the precautionary principle was a major concern
for industry. I quote from the section on cost effectiveness:
The original bill generally incorporated the notion of “cost
effectiveness” in a number of sections (Administrative Duties,
Information Gathering provisions and Pollution Prevention
Planning provisions) and these references have been
systematically deleted by the Parliamentary Committee. The
Committee has also introduced provisions into the Administrative
Duties section ... that require the government to consider the
benefits of taking environmental action, do not require it to
consider the costs and even specify that if there are no benefits
identified, this should not stand in the way of taking action.
This creates an imbalance in the Bill that is inconsistent with
the principles of sustainable development whereby environmental,
economic and social considerations all have to be integrated. The
original balance in the Bill needs to be restored by reinserting
the previous references ... to actions having to be cost
effective.
Ladies and gentlemen, parliamentarians, cost effective—
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member intends to
refer to Mr. Speaker rather than to ladies and gentlemen in his
speech. I know that was his intention and I would invite him to
comply with the rules in that regard.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I am consumed by this
emotional debate and I tend to forget to look at the Speaker.
Sometimes it is Madam Speaker or Mr. Speaker and that is to whom
I was referring.
In highlighting the interest of cost effectiveness and balance
we have to look at the beneficial side. Some of the initiatives
taken under the precautionary principle can lack scientific
evidence and certainty. We cannot balance everything through a
cost effective screen. We have to look at the beneficial screen.
Some of the beneficial screens might be for children's health.
It might be that the plastics in soothers or the nipples of
bottles are not safe.
This is a very small population compared to the adult population
of the world. However, if we do not look at the benefits of
introducing measures for this small, susceptible subgroup, we
cannot go forward and say that the sustainable development of the
country and the world is protected under the bill. Everything is
measured under cost effectiveness and we cannot accept that. We
did not accept it last night and we are not prepared to accept it
tonight.
1145
In the past week we have received evidence from the Commissioner
of the Environment that the Liberal cabinet has taken the
environment issue very lightly. Since the 1993 election we have
seen evidence of a decline in the program review of the
Department of the Environment. This department has gone from one
of the top ten departments in the country to being one of the
last. Even ministers do not want to become the Minister of the
Environment.
This is a far cry from what the new millennium should be. We
should be preparing the environment for the future of our
children. We should be empowering the Department of the
Environment to be holistic in its cabinet affairs. It should be
part of the social caucus and economic caucus. However, it is
being shoved to the side and belittled every day.
Today we are discussing the pesticide issue. One of the major
goals of the pesticide industry is to support and protect
industry in the country. However, its first goal should be to
protect our health and our environment. We cannot water down our
responsibilities.
This all goes back to cost effectiveness. If we put cost
effective measures in the environmental bill nothing could take
place. We could end up with an economic disaster in the future
if cost effective screens are not in place.
The unfriendly environmental lobby that has taken place in the
last few days was certainly successful in getting the votes.
However, I want to put on the record, for parliamentarians and
Canadians, the letters that were submitted to us. People can see
that the changes made in the bill reflect the needs of industry
not the needs of Canadians or the environment.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to final reading of Bill C-32, an act respecting
pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and
human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.
The bill has come a long way from its first reading back on
March 28, 1998 and I believe it faces a long road ahead in the
Senate. The environment and sustainable development committee
spent eight months alone hearing witnesses and reviewing the
proposed amendments in an attempt to improve the bill. However,
there is still a lot that can be done to make pollution
prevention the cornerstone objective in the act.
Eleven years ago in 1988, the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act was first introduced by the Progressive Conservative
government. It was a significant part of our environmental
record and part of over a decade of environmental progress from
1984 to 1993.
While the government promised “A Liberal government will lead
in protecting the environment” in the red book, the truth of the
matter is it has never had a plan to turn that promise into
action. This was empty election rhetoric coming from a party
that no longer has any credibility on this file.
It has taken six long years to get this significant piece of
environmental legislation to third reading. It had to get there
by invoking the dreaded debate killing, time allocation hammer,
something the government has done 53 times since it has taken
office in 1993.
1150
One wonders what the Liberals are afraid to hear. I have news
for them. There was no need to kill the debate. The secret is
already out. Canadians already know the government does not
intend to put consideration of the environment and human health
first. There is no need to pretend any more or to make any other
promises. The truth of the matter is that Canadians do not
expect leadership on the environment from the Liberal government.
Last year's report tabled by the Commissioner of the Environment
stated:
Vision and leadership are the two essential ingredients for
tackling environmental challenges that face the
government...While Canada has demonstrated vision, it is failing
in implementing it...The government is not keeping the promises
it makes both Canadians and the world.
The government's lack of commitment to the environment is
painfully obvious to Canadians. Part of the problem is reflected
in the cuts to the environment ministry budget and human
resources. It has gone from being the eighth largest department
when the Progressive Conservative Party was in government to the
smallest now of all 21 departments.
In contrast, our decade of governing is marked by significant
progress on the environmental agenda. We established a strong
national voice for the environment and showed world leadership on
sustainable development.
Let me take a moment to remind Canadians what environmental
progress really sounds like. It was the government of the
Progressive Conservative Party, the party of Tom MacMillan,
Lucien Bouchard and Jean Charest, three consecutive environment
ministers, which actually played a significant role with respect
to the environment.
The Progressive Conservative's initiatives included developing
international leadership known as the Montreal protocol. This
led to the international community signing an accord to eliminate
or phase out ozone depleting gases. Canada was a principle
player in this 1987 accord.
The Conservatives also eliminated lead in gasoline. They signed
an air quality accord with the Americans to control international
air pollution. Perhaps the achievement I am most proud of is the
signing of an acid rain protocol with the Americans to ensure
that factories located mainly in the United States do not
contaminate the rivers, lakes and ponds located primarily in
eastern Canada. We did that by doing one initiative first: we
cleaned up our own act at home.
The Conservatives also set up a UV advisory program. They
eliminated the excise tax on methanol and ethanol in blended
fuels. They signed a revised Great Lakes water quality agreement
and introduced the first CEPA, the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. As the member for Davenport pointed out in
committee, it was a pioneering bill in 1988. It is the principle
bill for control in the use of toxins in the environment.
During the time we were in government the Prime Minister was
once quoted saying:
At an unprecedented rate, we are stripping the earth of its
forests, washing away its soil, creating vast deserts,
eradicating untold species of plants and animals, despoiling our
oceans and poisoning our skies.
Elizabeth May, director of the Sierra Club of Canada, wrote an
article on June 22 of last year saying:
Five years after he (Brian Mulroney) resigned as Prime Minister,
I think of the amazing pace in environmental progress made by his
government. Those days are long gone.
The Sierra Club of Canada stated in its Rio report card last
year the following about the Liberals:
I will now draw on the history of the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. The original CEPA was a pioneering bill enacted
to control the adverse effects of toxins in the environment; a
concern first highlighted in Rachel Carson's thought provoking
novel A Silent Spring. CEPA also included the need to
review the bill and its effectiveness after five years. This
progress began in 1994.
The first stage was an extensive review by the environment and
sustainable development committee. Its findings, detailed in a
document entitled “It's about our Health”, reported 141
recommendations for the government to consider in drafting the
revised bill.
The government responded in December 1996 with Bill C-74, a
piece of legislation that was so flawed and raised so much
controversy that the government elected to let it die on the
Order Paper at the dissolution of parliament in 1997.
Some individuals are concerned that this may actually be the fate
of this particular bill should the House prorogue this fall.
1155
The government decided to try again by tabling Bill C-32 in
April 1998, 10 years after the passage of the original act. It
is simply amazing that it has taken the government 11 years to
get here and it still does not have the full support of the House
for the bill. I would like to point out that it does not even
have the full support of its own caucus.
When the bill was sent to committee, it had a possible record
number of amendments put forward for discussion and debate. Some
400-plus proposed amendments were examined over a period of eight
months.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Five hundred and sixty.
Mr. John Herron: As the parliamentary secretary has
pointed out, 560 amendments were actually tabled with respect to
Bill C-32. I will take the opportunity to point out to the
parliamentary secretary that alarm bells should go off in
people's heads. If there are 560 amendments to a particular
piece of legislation before we actually get a chance to review it
clause by clause, maybe the bill is just a little bit more
flawed. If the parliamentary secretary wants to feed me a bit
more information throughout my speech perhaps she can actually
help me to bring those points forward. I am very appreciative of
her comments.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: There were 150 government amendments.
Mr. John Herron: The parliamentary secretary again
chooses to be an asset to my remarks by saying there were 150
government amendments. After six years of being in government
and two tries at actually doing the five year review of the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, what did the government
have to do? At the eleventh hour, 911 environmental management,
it had to put another 150 amendments at the clause by clause
stage. I was actually shocked to hear about that.
In six years the government has not had one piece of
environmental legislation. It had two cracks at CEPA and it was
still trying to amend it.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, were paying attention last night
when we voted on the report stage of the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. Not only was the government doing 150 amendments
at the clause by clause process, it was still adding more at the
report stage. I am shocked. I do not know exactly what is going
to take place.
A lot of the amendments came from a number of individuals who
are concerned about the environment. We had an environmental
coalition at committee in order to try to ratchet up the
environmental protection aspects of the bill to protect the
environment and human health.
I would like to pay tribute to the members for Churchill River
and Jonquière, critics from the NDP and the Bloc, who worked with
the Progressive Conservative Party and some very devout,
environmentally conscious members of the Liberal Party who sat on
the committee. Those individuals were the member for Davenport,
the member for York North and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I
think Canadians should pay tribute to their personal sacrifices
in that regard. We know they took a fair amount of political
heat from their own party members for their support in trying to
ratchet up the protection aspects with respect to human health
and the environment.
During the review process I asked the Minister of Health if he
supported the provisions in the bill which would enable him to
control endocrine disrupters. The parliamentary secretary said
that I had prejudged the clause by clause process. Perhaps at
that time I had prejudged it. Upon review, I may have actually
had a bit of foresight in terms of what was going to happen at
the clause by clause study.
What worries me is the fact that the parliamentary secretary
responded to that particular question. There are two co-sponsors
of the bill: the Minister of Health and the Minister of the
Environment. However, the Minister of Health chose not to
respond to that very important question which indeed has human
health aspects involved.
I do not believe for a minute that the Minister of the
Environment, the member from Northumberland, and the government
lack the political will to address the environmental concerns in
terms of what we were trying to do at the committee and what her
strong officials were trying to do at the departmental level.
It is not her political will by any means. I think it is the
political will of the government.
1200
The fact that the Minister of Health did not respond to that
question sends a signal to me. He is a primary player in
cabinet. For him not to respond to that question, and to allow
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment,
who was quickly on her feet, to respond, makes me think, if he
really is the co-sponsor of the bill, why would he not defend the
quality of the bill with respect to human health and the
environment.
The reason, as most members of the House and the media have seen
over the last number of weeks and months, is that this bill is
under attack from all sides. Whether they be environmentalists,
concerned Canadians or industry advocates, this bill has made
absolutely no one happy, especially before it went through the
clause by clause process.
The fact is that the government made the Minister of the
Environment bear the brunt of the political pressure on this
issue all the way along. The Minister of Health was absent and,
to a large degree, the Prime Minister was absent as well.
Yesterday when the Prime Minister responded to my question in
question period concerning the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act, it was the first time he had stood to respond to a question
with respect to this bill. The members for Churchill River and
Jonquière, as well as myself, have asked a number of questions
with respect to this bill. I know the critics for the Reform
Party have asked questions, but still we have only had one
response from the Prime Minister.
If we can do one thing for Canadians, we need to find more
political support for the Minister of the Environment so that she
will have more clout and more of her cabinet colleagues will pay
attention to this very important file.
Never in my short time in elected office, in my lengthy
parliamentary career of about 23 months, have I ever witnessed
such flagrant attempts by the government to deny the
parliamentary process the chance to operate and I hope I never
see it again.
The member for Lac-Saint-Louis, a former environment minister
for the province of Quebec and a former parliamentary secretary
to the minister of the environment, was repeatedly denied access
as a voting member of the committee. If we review the
transcripts of the committee we will see that this situation came
up time and time again. He brought to the table a wealth of
knowledge and experience, and the committee in many cases relied
upon his wisdom and guidance.
Instead, during the excessive eight month period it became a
challenge for the government to fill its needed nine committee
seats with anybody but the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. Other
Liberal members used the clause by clause process to catch up on
correspondence, read the newspaper and even take a nap. It was
the “anybody but the member for Lac-Saint-Louis campaign”,
where even the government's deputy whip had to take her seat at
the table when no other caucus members came forward to fill the
much needed nine spots. All the while the member for
Lac-Saint-Louis, rarely missing a meeting, was continuously told
he could not participate. He could participate in discussions
only. He could not move amendments. It is obvious the
government was afraid that his amendments might succeed in making
significant improvements to the bill.
Despite those attempts, in some cases we succeeded in improving
the bill. The government is now obliged to gather information on
endocrine disrupting substances. This would not have been
included in the act had it not been for the pressure placed on
the government to recognize the harmful effects of these
dangerous substances. It was a small victory for the environment
and human health.
I would like to point out that it was the definition of the
member for Churchill River which was accepted under the
information gathering clause of the bill. It was his amendment,
the amendments of the Progressive Conservative Party and those of
the Bloc as well which challenged the government to put forward
its own definition. I am proud to say that it was the NDP
definition that actually carried the day at the time.
Maybe that is how the political system is supposed to work.
Something was left out of the bill, the opposition parties
challenged the government to include something, and it was added.
In that aspect I maintain a degree of faith in the system.
Canada is already a world leader in research on endocrine
disrupting substances. The strong definition and enshrined
research clause that obligates the minister to act will set a new
standard for other nations to measure against. However, a
significant shortcoming is that we have no means to ensure that
the ministers will act upon any of their findings.
The precautionary principle has now been institutionalized in
the administrative duties section of the act. This means that
the minister will carry out his or her responsibilities in
keeping with the precautionary principle where absence of clear
science will no longer be a reason to postpone action.
This was first included in the Rio declaration, a document our
government fully endorsed in 1992.
1205
The act includes provisions allowing for civil suits.
Individuals can now hold industries accountable for failing to
abide by the law. This is an initiative brought forward by the
government and I applaud its initiative in that regard.
The legislation also includes provisions for pollution
prevention plans, which was another initiative by the government,
to challenge industries to ensure that their actions do not have
a harmful effect on the environment and on human health. This is
a voluntary scheme that promotes pollution prevention by
requiring certain industries to publish plans in order to curtail
releases into the environment. The affected industry is then
left to find a workable solution to the problem. If it does not,
the minister is empowered to act.
A pollution prevention plan is really a voluntary regulation.
The government can say to industry “You know your industry
better than we do. We want you to control the releases that your
process is causing”. In that regard, if a pollution prevention
plan does not do the job, the government is empowered to bring
forth regulations. It is a very valuable concept for the
government to work in conjunction with industry, but industry
must know that the government can act.
For the most part, individuals who work in industry understand
that it does not matter how much money they make because,
ultimately, if we cannot drink the water, breathe the air or live
in the environment, it does not make much sense. Most industry
officials subscribe to that concept, but it is up to us to ensure
that we challenge them not to cheat in that regard.
I am also concerned about the residual nature of the bill. I
would have preferred that the Minister of the Environment, the
Minister of Health and one other minister would have the capacity
to make a decision which would apply with respect to overlap and
duplication as opposed to going to governor in council. I think
that would have been a better option.
We supported the virtual elimination definition that was brought
forth in Bill C-32 before the clause by clause consideration. We
thought it was a very workable definition. It should not have
been changed in the first place, but I am glad that we reverted
to it last night.
It is our intention to support Bill C-32 tonight. We think it
augments what the 1988 CEPA did. It is an improvement with
respect to the precautionary principle, citizen suits, et cetera.
However, having said that, there is still room for improvement.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has
made a number of claims which I could probably spend at least 10
minutes refuting.
He indicated in his comments that pollution prevention under
Bill C-32 would be voluntary, which of course he knows is
incorrect; it would be on the authority of the minister.
He also references Elizabeth May, who worked for a Conservative
member, so that is always an interesting critique of this
government.
Specifically he mentioned that this bill is not green enough. I
wonder how he can say that when he voted for some amendments and
introduced other amendments at report stage which were not
environmentally friendly. How can the member stand and say that
this bill is not green enough when he would have seen significant
changes that would have altered this bill to make it less
environmentally friendly?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I will address the last
issue which the member brought up first, which concerns the
amendments on virtual elimination. I think those are the ones
she is referring to.
1210
In fact, the government brought forth its own definition which
did exactly the same thing and it supported its own amendment.
It is already on side. I hope the hon. member is not admitting
that the government lacks environmental conscience in that
regard.
With respect to pollution prevention plans, I would say that she
is 100% right. They only come into play at the request of the
minister, but it is a voluntary initiative whereby the minister
can say “Hey, you guys tell us how you are going to clean up
your act. If you don't, we will do it by regulation”. I did
not mean to say anything different in that regard.
Elizabeth May, who is a leader of the Sierra Club, has not
necessarily been the Conservatives' best advocate, but she has
pointed out that when she compares our record to their record,
there is no contest. Ours wins every time.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member made quite a point of saying that this process has
been undemocratic and that the procedure followed by the
committee was undemocratic. I think he is a person who would
advocate justice, ensuring that the decisions which are made are
based on rational, good, solid scientific evidence.
The hon. member said something to the effect that this bill does
not require, in every instance, a basis on scientific fact. On
what basis would risk assessment take place if, in fact, it is
not required that it be based on science? Is he suggesting that
perhaps certain political, capricious or spurious reasons could
be introduced to declare something to be environmentally
damaging? What would be the basis on which a risk assessment
would be done?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has
brought forth a very constructive question. This is an issue on
which members of his party and our party do not exactly agree.
We do agree on this issue, that science should be what drives
the decision making process as to whether a government should act
in a particular circumstance. Science should be number one.
However, when the science is headed in a very clear direction,
and when we think that the use of a particular toxin or a
particular process is causing harm to the environment or human
health, the government should not have to wait for the last
i to be dotted or the last t to be crossed before
taking action.
We do not necessarily agree on that particular point. We
support the precautionary principle. If there is doubt, the
government should be concerned with the environment and human
health first before every i is dotted and every t is
crossed. The government supports that concept, as do we. The
Progressive Conservatives support that concept, as well as the
NDP and the Bloc. With respect, I invite my friend from the
Reform Party to embrace that aspect of the precautionary
principle.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to raise a couple of questions. One deals with the
beginning of the act and the other with the end of the act.
I would ask the hon. member how he could support the bill as it
is. At the beginning of the bill, the preamble, which was amended
last night, removes the phase-out period for toxic chemicals.
The hon. member knows that highly toxic chemicals in this country
do not require virtual elimination, they need to be phased out.
The world is working toward that, but Canada will not be.
At the end of his remarks he talked about democratic integrity
and that the integrity of the standing committee should be
respected. It was not when all of these amendments were passed
last night.
Also, at the end of the bill it states that the next review
could be done exclusively by a Senate committee. I do not know
if he understood that last amendment.
The phase-out aspect and the review this of bill are very
crucial.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that
the term “phase-out” was taken out of the preamble of the bill.
We support the concept of virtual elimination. Having said
that, the intent, the language and the spirit of the bill must
embrace the concept that those most toxic substances that exist
should not exist. When we are considering PCBs, DDT and those
sorts of things, we need to empower the government to be able to
completely phase-out those kinds of substances.
1215
The system we use is a risk based system. That is how we manage
our toxins. We need to embrace the concept of virtual
elimination as long as we are challenging industry on an ongoing
basis.
The word phase-out primarily addresses, as the member for
Churchill River knows, issues such as POPs. We should not send a
negative signal in that regard. It was an excessive reaction to
a concern of industry. It was concerned that the virtual
elimination concept could be changed in that regard. The
minister should have the power in certain circumstances to make a
call.
With respect to the humanitarian review of CEPA, whether it is
done in the Senate or the House my biggest concern is the fact
that it be done in a timely manner. We are reviewing CEPA 88 in
1999, some 11 years later.
The member raised another issue with respect to the Senate. I
categorically support an elected Senate in every way, shape and
form. The concern of many Canadians is that by allowing only the
Senate to review something, it is being given to an unelected
body. Until we have an elected Senate we actually water down the
credibility of any parliamentary review which takes place,
despite the fact that the senators engaged in the issue may be
making a very valuable contribution on behalf of Canadians.
The alarm bells go off when it is given to an unelected body,
which is something the country is ready to address and should
address well into the future.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
to advise the House that throughout this debate Liberal members
will be splitting their time.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are in the final hours of a four-year debate on Bill
C-32.
When the time has come to pass a final and overall judgment on a
bill, there are two ways to go about it: compare the proposed
legislation to the most desirable ideal legislation, or compare
the proposed legislation to the current act.
In the first instance, obviously there is a tendency to bemoan
the fact that such or such an amendment was not passed because
it would have improved the bill. In the latter, the question is
whether the bill before us contains enough improvements to
justify its being passed.
I will not keep members guessing any longer. I am one of those
who will support Bill C-32 because, in my view, it represents a
marked improvement over our current environmental act, despite a
few uncertainties.
With regard to Bill C-32's renewal of our fundamental
environmental act, it goes beyond pollution control, focusing
essentially on its prevention.
It takes direct aim at toxic substances through the virtual
elimination of those most harmful to the environment and health.
It focuses on the cautionary principle. It sets out a tighter
and more efficient process for the evaluation and management of
toxic substances. Also it improves the control of pollutants and
certain waste categories.
It strengthens enforcement of the act by giving public servants
the same authority as a peace officer, fostering and encouraging
public participation, and better protecting whistleblowers.
Finally the bill deals more adequately with new realities such
as biotechnology and long-overlooked historical realities, namely
our relations with native peoples.
Since the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act was
passed in 1988, our vision of the environment has become broader
and richer.
We have entered the sustainable development era or, more
specifically, a time devoted to the research and development of
an integrated management model for our habitat and resources,
which will gradually enable us to integrate environmental
concerns into our economic and social decisions both
domestically and internationally.
1220
In this regard, Bill C-32 is a real step forward, as witness the
fact that the environment and health ministers will no longer
have sole responsibility for the quality of the environment.
Many other ministers, and often cabinet itself, will to have
to appreciate the importance of a number of complex situations affecting
exports, international air and water pollution, aquaculture and
biotechnology. This sharing of responsibilities is the only
hope for the long term success of government management of
sustainable development.
I would also point out that the bill creates a framework that
will allow the federal government not only to exercise its
public health responsibilities but also to strengthen the
necessary co-operation with other levels of government.
This bill contains dozens of clauses requiring the federal
government to consult its partners, but it also provides that,
after two months, the government must act in the public interest
with respect to pollution problems, which cannot wait for the
Canadian constitution to change.
The House has listened to a series of speeches from the Bloc
Quebecois suggesting that the federal government is bulldozing
over everything in its path with respect to the environment,
when what it is in fact doing is negotiating with the provinces
harmonization agreements that Quebec is refusing to sign.
To hear the Bloc Quebecois tell it, the federal government
should not be allowed to exercise its research, planning and
regulatory responsibilities. It should not be allowed to draw
up a list of priority substances, or a national inventory of
toxic substances, or take action with respect to exports,
biotechnology, aquaculture, fuel, and so on and so forth,
without the agreement of the provinces.
Internationally, there is a consensus. Environmental issues
require increasingly close co-operation between countries but, if
we are to believe the leading lights in the Bloc Quebecois,
interprovincial boundaries and constitutional arguments here in
Canada would take precedence over our primary responsibility,
which is to manage our habitat safely for our own good and for
the good of our descendants.
Personally, I am pleased that Bill C-32 provides a framework that
will allow the federal government to exercise sound leadership
in a spirit of active co-operation, not sterile discussions and
apathy.
Earlier, I mentioned that Bill C-32 also raised some
uncertainties, which I want to discuss. I am taking this
opportunity to emphasize the tremendous work of my Liberal
colleagues who sit on the standing committee, and also the
positive contribution made by several members of the opposition,
who showed great tenacity regarding these issues.
These issues include the following: What would be the
effectiveness of the very complex procedure governing the
establishment of the priority list? Will the Minister of the
Environment have the necessary resources to do his job within the
prescribed timeframe? What will be the true priority given to the
prevention of pollution control in the strategy to enforce the
act? What will be the true priority given to the principle of
caution when facing partially unknown situations? Will the use of
cost effective measures make the situation so complicated that
it will prevent the required actions from being taken? What will
be the strategy of the industry lobby: will it fight tooth and
nail or will it try to find ways to make businesses more
environmentally friendly, while also making them more profitable?
As for the government, there are also questions that need to be
asked: will the Ministers of the Environment and Health be given
any more support by their economic colleagues in cabinet? Will
those colleagues have an enhanced sense of responsibility as far
as our resources are concerned, both economically and
internationally? Finally, will the provinces really co-operate?
Will the public reap the benefit of the new means at its
disposal and require all the transparency and stringency of
application this renewed legislation needs?
These are all questions the bill does not, and cannot, provide
answers for.
These are questions that time and people of good faith will
answer. People like ourselves, in their businesses, in their
roles as elected representatives at other levels, in their roles
as public servants, or merely as enlightened and critical
citizens, will decide that environmental management is a true
priority and that it is worthwhile pursuing a societal model
with sustainable bases and perspectives.
1225
In closing, I would like to congratulate the Minister of the
Environment for successfully bringing this bill to maturity. I
would also like to thank all those who contributed to the
drafting and passage of this bill, whether behind the scenes or
in more public roles.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. I
think I missed a small part of what he said about the matter of
the responsibility of ministers other than the Minister of the
Environment, and I think he mentioned the Minister of Health.
Just for my information, could he revisit that section of his
remarks to give us some idea of the roles of ministers other than
the Minister of the Environment in the legislation?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, it concerns instances in the
bill where decision making power will not rest with the Minister
of the Environment and the Minister of Health, the two sponsors
of the bill, but will be transferred to cabinet, which will have
to assess a number of complex situations.
For example, when the time comes to reach agreements on the
export of substances or dangerous waste with other countries,
cabinet will have the final say. It is also true that there are
issues relating to air pollution, internationally, when there
are sources of pollution on both sides of the border. There are
also issues involving international water pollution, binational
water pollution in our case, by Canada and the United States.
Here again cabinet will have to decide on the scope of
agreements and of the measures to be taken.
The same is true in the area of aquaculture. If the government
feels that other laws protect the environment sufficiently, the
Minister of the Environment, at that point, does not have to
intervene. This applies as well to biotechnology.
There are certain complex issues causing responsibility for
environmental management by the government to be shared among a
number of ministers. I know that some see this as a weakness, a
potential source of conflict, misunderstanding, delay and
blockage. This should be examined. I mentioned it in the series
of questions I raised.
At the same time, if management of the environment is to take
place within the perspective of sustainable development, all
ministers dealing with these economic or international matters
must themselves assume responsibility, which involves their
staff and their department, for including environmental concerns
in their decisions.
It would not then be just the Minister of the Environment or the
Minister of Health, who would alone bear responsibility for the
environment. Little by little, it would become a concern of
cabinet as a whole. I gave this example as an illustration, I
believe that this puts us on the road to sustainable development
over the years. It will not be easy, but it is definitely the
right road.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I commend the hon. member on taking an active role through the
whole review process. He was there and saw the evolution of the
past year in what we have before us today at third reading. He
made the bold statement that we do not have a perfect bill.
Unfortunately that is what this process has created. He also
highlighted the fact that the bill was an improvement to the
existing CEPA bill.
Just before we departed on the journey of reviewing Bill C-32,
the standing committee indicated that enforcement of existing
CEPA laws was very much in question, that the enforcement of
existing laws lacked financial and human resources.
Would the hon. member comment on the enforcement of the bill
which includes additional responsibilities and additional duties?
Does he see the need for a major improvement to be made in terms
of additional resources required for the enforcement of this law?
1230
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for
asking how the legislation we are passing will be enforced, a
question that concerns us all.
As members of the committee, we all signed a report pointing out
the weaknesses in the enforcement of certain aspects of the
existing legislation.
Given the challenge of vigorous and rigorous enforcement, there
are two concerns I wish to share with with the hon. member.
First of all, the legislation must assign powers and provide for
enforcement and, in addition, the government must set aside
appropriate funding in the budget for the Minister of the
Environment to enforce the legislation.
The bill creates more favourable conditions by allowing
enforcement officers to perform the duties of peace officers and
to issue summonses, as required, when they come across
unacceptable situations.
Second, there is more encouragement for ongoing public vigilance
with respect to enforcement. Ultimately, this holds out the
most promise. There are also additional measures to protect
whistleblowers. So much for the legal angle.
That leaves the financial considerations. The last two budgets
set aside increased amounts for the Minister of the Environment
to assume her responsibilities with respect to the analysis of
toxic substances.
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak and to ask a few questions
about several areas that I find rather puzzling in relation to
this bill.
The first one that comes to mind has to do with investing
millions of dollars in toxic research when the legislative
vehicle provided by parliament sputters on three cylinders,
panting along in a veritable obstacle race.
The official opposition offers an interesting benchmark for
analysing the bill. Why would the official opposition support
the bill? Why is it that a regional party like the Reform, with
no base in Ontario, Quebec and eastern Canada, would support the
bill? Is the Reform Party likely to support a bill strong on
pollution prevention, strong on the elimination of toxic
substances and strong on the definition of inherent toxicity?
These are questions for those who do not know the complex and
technical bill that is passing through the Chamber right now. It
is to them that these questions are directed. The political
decision of Reform today to support the bill gives a clue to the
real value of the bill as amended last night. The Reform
position, I submit, was written by industry, the very industry
the bill is supposed to control through pollution prevention.
Some people claim that Bill C-32 will put Canada on the leading
edge of environmental protection law worldwide. This claim and
other claims need to be examined closely.
There is much celebration of the fact that Bill C-32 places
strict deadlines on the government to act to protect the
environment and human health from toxic substances, namely three
and a half years after a substance is determined to be toxic.
Such determination alone may take many years and because of
certain amendments adopted last night is likely to take longer.
Even when action is taken it may be in the form of voluntary
codes or other soft actions.
We should not be trumpeting that the strict deadlines will
result in strict controls or bans. As for virtual elimination
the claim that Canada is the first country to take the action of
virtual elimination should also be considered very carefully.
In committee we tried to make it as strong as possible, but
following last night's report stage amendments the definition is
a far cry from the original intention of the committee.
1235
Following the intervention of industry there is no guarantee
under the bill that virtual elimination would achieve zero or
near zero emissions. There is no requirement to push toward that
desired result.
What comfort is it to Canadians if toxic chemicals get
catalogued and assessed but not necessarily eliminated? All Bill
C-32 can do for Canadians is reduce, perhaps one day, the release
of toxic substances to a certain level but not necessarily to
zero.
Another claim to be examined is that nine of the dirty dozen
toxic substances so far slated for virtual elimination have been
dealt with. When Canadians hear this claim, they would expect
that these substances have been banned or at least their use
severely limited by regulation.
People hearing this claim in the context of CEPA might also
expect that the substances have been dealt with under CEPA,
especially since CEPA is often called Canada's cornerstone
legislation for environmental protection. In fact, the use of
some of these substances has been voluntarily discontinued by the
manufacturer. In other cases the substance is regulated not
under CEPA but under the Pest Control Products Act.
Bill C-32 could have been a reasonably good law. Yet it is
still a far cry from the red book promise on page 66 of the 1993
document which reads:
Canada needs a new approach that focuses on preventing pollution
at source. Timetables must be set for phasing out all use of the
most persistent toxic substances.
This is a far cry from the commitment in 1993. As I said, the
bill could be a reasonably good one if the improvements made in
committee had not been dismantled at the report stage; if
business interests had not been put ahead of public health; if
the official opposition had performed an effective role, which it
did not; and if at the last minute, after the committee had
reported to the House, cabinet ministers had not circumvented the
good work of the committee by introducing last minute changes not
examined in committee as in the case of nutrients and had not
eliminated strong provisions thoroughly endorsed by the standing
committee as in the case of inherent toxicity.
In the end what prevailed is the agenda of industry and of the
Reform Party which is clearly in the pocket of industry. One
just needs to look at its amendments or read its speeches at
report stage and today to see the Reform's determination to
ingratiate itself to industry with the next election in mind.
Considering the Reform performance on Bill C-32 and its strict
adherence to the pressure of corporate lobbyists, an interesting
question arises on whether our electoral law should continue to
allow corporate donations to political parties.
It is interesting to note the member for Nanaimo—Alberni said
in his speech yesterday that Canadians should be concerned about
managing toxic substances, not preventing their use. What a
great commitment to the status quo. The member's pronouncement
reflects letters from industry lobby groups to MPs a few weeks
ago, which we all received and must have noted.
To conclude, let me say that we missed many opportunities to
have a strong bill. We had strong articulation of the
precautionary principle. It was defeated. We offered a strong
vehicle for the Minister of the Environment to prevent pollution
in the growing agriculture industry. It was defeated. We
strived for a strong fast track for dealing with inherently toxic
substances. It was rejected.
We proposed strong provisions allowing the Minister of the
Environment to protect the environment and human health arising
from the expanding biotechnology sector. That opportunity was
lost. We proposed an assurance that federal ministers of the
environment and health could act quickly, where necessary,
unimpeded by federal-provincial political considerations. It was
defeated.
We proposed an assurance that the ministers could act quickly,
where necessary, unimpeded by economic scare-mongering by
industry lobbies and the Reform Party, unimpeded by members of
cabinet with economic and not environmental mandates. That was
also defeated.
1240
As a result we have this bill at third reading. It could have
been a reasonably good law. It could have been a strong piece of
legislation for the next 10 years. It could have put health
ahead of industrial interest. It could have put the public
interest ahead of investment.
The most regrettable part of this entire debate is that somehow
we conceptually fell into the trap of believing that we could not
have strong environmental legislation at the same time as a
healthy economy. We were somehow distracted by the belief
initiated and well promoted by lobby groups that we could have
only one or the other.
That is the major drawback which has somehow been in the way of
the committee's work and in the way of parliament achieving the
kind of legislation of which we could be proud for the next
decade in relation to the prevention of pollution as written in
the title of the bill and in relation to the protection of human
health.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the member for Davenport on the bill is
obviously not being substantiated by many people in the House and
across the country. He is taking a minority position. In his
arguments he is bringing forward to us the idea that it is the
Reform Party's problem and the Reform Party's bill.
Does he agree the bill was put forward by the Liberal government
and is being passed by a majority vote in the Liberal Party?
I have a second question which gets down to the technicalities
of the bill and concerns discussions about scientifically based
decision making. We have to be clear that international trade
and issues dealing with pesticides are based on science only. The
Europeans are denying beef access into Europe on a non-scientific
basis. Health Canada has denied rBST on a non-scientific basis.
Would the member comment on whose bill it is and clarify that it
is in fact a government bill? It takes government members to
make sure there is a majority to get it through.
Would he also clarify that the bill is purely based on
scientific decision making with regard to toxic substances? The
bill provides for a national ban on substances banned in other
provinces or industrialized countries. This abandons risk
assessment as the basis for priorization and chemical control
when it is the standard accepted internationally.
Does the bill not undermine the necessity of requiring science
based decision making?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Selkirk—Interlake is asking two questions, each of which would
require a considerable amount of time to answer. I will try to
start with the second one by saying that science is clearly
ultimate in its conclusions and gives to humans on the planet the
ultimate answer, the conclusive answer upon which we connect the
laws of gravity, for instance.
There is a realm of science that covers a field in which there
is no absolute certainty, for example the case of heavy metals
where science cannot give us the ultimate answer. This is why
the precautionary principle was invented some time ago.
1245
We have learned over time particularly when it comes to toxic
substances that have the potential capacity to damage human
health and the ecosystem, that it is preferable to act when
science is not completely conclusive on the assumption that it is
better to act earlier rather than wait to see the smoking gun.
This is as well as I can answer the hon. member's question.
As to the other question which is a very legitimate one which I
welcome, of course we know who proposed the bill. We also know
the role of the official opposition. It opposes almost
everything in the House and votes against almost every bill that
comes through the House.
This bill is so important in relation to the corporate and the
industrial world. Why is it that the official opposition finds it
possible to support this bill in contrast to its traditional
attitude and role of opposing it, which is part of the way
parliament is designed? Why did members of the official
opposition propose amendments at report stage which were
virtually word for word the same amendments proposed by the
government? Why is there this desire and readiness on the part
of the official opposition not to oppose this measure but to
support it?
I think this is a very legitimate question. I hope the hon.
member will reflect upon why his party and the Conservative Party
have decided to support this measure the way that it is now,
having dismantled the work of the committee at the report stage
under pressure by industry and lobbyists here in Ottawa.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey
Central.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, an
act regarding pollution prevention, protection of the environment
and human health in order to contribute to sustainable
development in Canada.
Though other concerns have replaced the environment at the top
of Canadians' list of issues, I am sure we will all agree that
the environment will always be a serious matter across the
political spectrum both federally and provincially. Canadians
who are unfortunately the most prolific users of water can be
called upon to do the right thing to clean up and protect that
resource. They look to governments to provide leadership in that
area.
Like recycling and conservation efforts in solid waste
management, Canadians have shown themselves to be responsible,
concerned and enthusiastic. However, I do not think they have
much respect for big buck, one size fits all, government imposed
solutions that feature the federal government competing against
and overriding provincial and local initiatives.
My colleagues in the Reform Party have dispelled the notion that
our party does not care about the environment and have made it
very clear that successful programs to clean up the environment
and keep it that way have to use a balanced approach.
As on so many issues that have a direct impact on the citizens
of the country, the idea that one party or philosophy is against
and their opposite numbers are for a certain item is simplistic
and outdated. There is nobody here in the House or in the
country who is for dirty water or dirty air, or somehow in favour
of the chemicals in our food and in our soil.
In my corner of the country we struggle daily to grow the best
quality food to feed Canadians and the world. We are more than
aware that water is a precious resource. We are also aware that
many government initiatives meant to clean up or control problems
simply end up making things worse or creating new ones. That is
why we look at these massive bills and all their amendments very
carefully. Quite often it is more important to put the right
system in place than to have no system at all.
The title of this bill suggests that all the elements are here
to address this issue properly. But titles, like book covers, do
not always tell what is inside.
This act is meant to address prevention of pollution and that is
a noble effort by all measures. It would make our job so much
easier if we had been successful in regulating chemical use in
the past. We want to protect the environment and human health
which cannot be more important. Then we see a reference to
sustainable development which has become a bit of a political
football between industry and environmental lobbyists.
To have successful legislation, we believe that all these
elements must be included and that they must be addressed in a
balanced manner. One way to do this is to ensure that what
regulators and industry have at their disposal is good science.
1250
We have seen with the health protection branch that when big
money interests combine with butt-covering bureaucracy the result
is often the political use of science on a selective basis and
the undermining of credibility for the whole process. When we are
dealing with chemicals used for industrial and agricultural
purposes, we have the potential for the same thing.
With billions of dollars at stake, it is vital that players on
both sides and the consumers who have to live with the
consequences are confident that the process of identifying,
regulating and approving substances be open and accountable. As
with the tax system, when producers and consumers lose confidence
they resort to avoidance and to reactions that might make
problems worse rather than better.
It is no better when we have a powerful lobby on one side or the
other. The perception that big industry has government in its
pocket is contradicted when environmentalists step up to the
plate.
I remember a few years ago when there was a panic in the U.S
about the chemical alar. This was sprayed on apples and other
orchard fruit to keep them on the branch longer. I am sure the
developers of the chemical felt they had a good thing. The fruit
would be better developed and more nutritious the longer it grew
on the tree.
Nobody sets out to invent a chemical to cause human cancer but
before long there were scientific tests that suggested that is
what that chemical did. Very quickly there was a panic. Millions
of mothers stopped buying apples and a year's crop had to be
destroyed at a loss of billions of dollars to the producers.
Farmers in the American northwest were devastated and it took
years to get their customers back.
What was the so-called scientific basis for this panic? Like
saccharin just a few years earlier, doses of alar so high that a
child would virtually have to eat the stuff by the plateful were
fed to rats until they developed tumours.
Because of a clause inserted in the Environmental Protection Act
in the 1950s, any chemical that even hinted that it had anything
to do with an illness of any sort had to be banned. It did not
matter that the chemical had to be ingested by the truckload, it
was just enough that one rat in a hundred seemed to get sick as a
result. Saccharin by the way is back on the market, although it
will never catch up to some of the other products after its
fiasco.
Somebody might say “If it was your kid being saved, you might
think it was worthwhile to ban certain chemicals before they got
going”. Maybe, if anybody could ever pin down exactly what the
relationship was between any one chemical and any given illness
or combination of those.
We know that there are tens of thousands of chemicals in the
environment. This fact is one reason for updating CEPA through
Bill C-32. We should also be aware though that there are
millions of natural chemicals everywhere we look. Just because
they are from nature does not make them benign.
Tobacco for instance does not contain nicotine for human
enjoyment. It is in fact a pesticide produced by the plant
itself to ward off certain organisms. Try as we might to tell
people of the terrible damage that this chemical and the hundreds
of others found in tobacco smoke can do to their health, millions
still light up daily. From that billions of dollars go to
governments and multinational companies which shows what we are
really up against here.
Would it be balanced to simply take the so-called right to smoke
away from people? There are plenty of non-smokers who might like
to go that route. But prohibition usually leads to increased use
rather than the intended results, and governments would be forced
to pay for an anti-smoking campaign at the same time as they were
missing out on all those excise revenues they have come to enjoy.
I am not suggesting that tobacco is a good example for Bill C-32;
it is just an example of the jumble of health and economic issues
that comes with most human activities.
When we consider what to do about thousands of chemicals, we
cannot assume that blanket prohibition based on an agenda driven
science and backed by the arbitrary powers of ministerial orders
in council will be the answer to environmental problems. We need
only look at the recent MMT fiasco to see where this leads.
The auto industry did not want MMT. Some lobby groups did not
want MMT. But the producer of that chemical claimed to have
extensive evidence that MMT was not the bogeyman it was made out
to be. Millions of tax dollars later, the member for Hamilton
East has another blunder on her record and the public is no
closer to knowing whether or not there is anything wrong with
this gasoline additive.
I am sure there are other gas additives out there that deserve
closer scrutiny as well. There are environmentalists who would
approve of banning the use of gasoline altogether. But unless we
line up industry, consumers, scientists and regulators into a
co-operative open system of examining chemicals and the processes
that they are used in, the system will not work. It will break
down.
We may think it is good enough to put arbitrary powers in the
hands of a minister, but ministers can be influenced by powerful
friends. We may think it is enough to hire scientists to do
studies, but we have to be clear about what we are asking our
scientists to look for and who is funding those results. We may
think it is good enough to shut down agriculture or industry
because a few are not being responsible, but the suffering
throughout the economy would be enormous.
After Bill C-32 we still have disagreements about who is
responsible for what. Industry hates uncertainty, and yes, that
is important. Empirical studies indicate economic prosperity
leads to a cleaner environment.
When there is a profit to invest in better processes, there is
less pollution, less waste.
1255
Governments with successful economies can devote more money to
infrastructure, like new water treatment plants and water
transmission systems that do not leak water at the rates we see
in many jurisdictions.
Agriculture and industry need profits to research and develop
new products and technologies that will be more efficient. Anyone
who thinks profit is a dirty word should think twice about what
they are asking Canadian businesses to do or do without. We all
want to clean up the environment and we should all have input
into how that is done.
My party and I will be voting in favour of Bill C-32 with some
caution. The version of the bill that went to committee we feel
was on the right track. We want to see an environmental regime
that reflects a multiparty approach to environmental issues. Ask
all the stakeholders.
We can leave a cleaner country to our grandchildren than the one
we inherited but we cannot ignore other responsibilities as well.
We have to leave a record of responsible research, a model of
intergovernmental co-operation, an economy that provides the
greatest good for the greatest number and a tradition of open
participation and involvement of all the stakeholders.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with considerable interest to what the member had to
say. I may not have heard correctly but it seemed to me that he
suggested that the auto industry was opposed to the banning of
MMT.
My recollection is that it was quite the reverse. The auto
industry was very concerned not only about the environmental
effects of MMT but also about the effects of MMT on the
diagnostic equipment which is now a part of every modern
automobile. That is the equipment which monitors the emissions
to the atmosphere of everything that the car produces. If in fact
MMT is damaging those diagnostic parts of the vehicle, a vehicle
could in fact be polluting tremendously without the owner knowing
it.
Perhaps I misheard but it seemed to me the member suggested that
the automobile industry did not want to ban MMT.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
clarification. I did say the auto industry was against MMT, not
for it, because of the diagnostic problems that would result.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this morning it was a nice revelation to hear that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment said
she knew the difference between not environmentally friendly
amendments and environmentally friendly amendments.
Does the hon. member know the difference between environmentally
friendly amendments to this bill and not environmentally friendly
amendments? How many environmentally friendly amendments were
proposed by his party? They certainly did not succeed in
supporting the amendments that we hoped would have strengthened
the bill. On the issue of phase-out that was deleted last night
in the amendments, is the hon. member aware that the most toxic
substances in the country should have been a priority in the bill
and the amendments were deleted by the way his party voted last
night?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, it was said earlier, I
believe by the member for Churchill River, that this bill is not
perfect and we certainly agree with that. As I said in my speech,
we will be supporting the bill with caution. We would still like
to see some changes. We would like to see further things done.
This is an ongoing debate and it will be an ongoing process.
The biggest thing we need to see in any legislation like this is
balance. Let us look at what the stakeholders are involved with.
We saw that with the economic impact Kyoto had in my part of the
country and the uncertainty that it creates for industry and so
on. Industry is what creates jobs.
When we talk about environmental impacts we have to look at the
economic environment and the impact on that as well. There has
to be balance in everything we do. Right now a lot of the
chemical companies and so on are almost in limbo waiting to see
what is going to happen with this legislation. Certainly they
lobbied hard to keep the status quo in some cases.
There are some cases where things need to be changed and others
where we need to take a more moderate phase-in approach as the
member has said.
All of the actions in the reports must be based on scientific
reports, not politics. That is the basis where we are coming
from. It has to be a balanced approach.
1300
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has
raised the issue of MMT. I would hope he would recognize that
action taken previously on MMT was not under CEPA.
Science will demonstrate the risks. Environment Canada is doing
research on MMT at the University of Montreal with Professor
Zayed. We have the power to regulate fuels within this bill, I
believe it is in section 140. With the good CEPA that is being
proposed today, we can do more on the fuels area. The Canadian
Vehicle Manufacturers Association supported the changes that were
being made in this area so we could do more. Does the member
opposite recognize this fact?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, again we would have to go
back to having anything to do with products like MMT based on
scientific fact, not on public uproar fueled by all the
stakeholders. It has to be a balanced approach. The idea that it
can be regulated through CEPA is good. It gives us an avenue we
can work through.
As I have indicated, there is a lot we can support in this bill
but let us proceed with caution and revisit this as often as we
need to in order to make it a better piece of legislation over
the years.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill
C-32, the government's review of the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, CEPA in short. Before I go any further I would
like to congratulate my hon. colleague from
Battlefords—Lloydminster on the excellent speech he delivered
in the House today.
Section 139 of the act requires a five year mandatory review of
the administration of the act. The review we are debating today
began in the last parliament.
The main purpose of Bill C-32 is to protect the environment and
human health. This legislation provides measures for the
protection of the environment and human health, pollution
prevention, management of toxic substances, virtual elimination
of the release of the most dangerous substances and partnerships
to achieve the highest level of environmental quality.
CEPA replaces and incorporates several previously existing acts
such as the Environmental Contaminants Acts, the Ocean Dumping
Control Act, the Clean Air Act and many others.
Bill C-32 regulates the use of toxic chemicals by industry. It
controls the importation, sale and disposal of dangerous
chemicals including PCBs, dioxins and ozone depleting substances.
The act was intended to fill regulatory gaps in certain
environmental matters, for example toxic substances. The act was
also aimed at enabling Canada to fulfill international
obligations. Bill C-32 is very complex and deals with aspects of
pollution prevention.
The Reform Party supports realistic measures that protect the
environment and balance environmental concerns with economic
concerns. Reform believes that environmental considerations must
carry equal weight with economic, social and technical
considerations in the development of a project. This is key to
protecting our environment.
Reform believes in public consultation, public participation and
public commitment. Governments must work together to ensure our
environment is a priority.
When Bill C-32 was introduced in the House of Commons we were
pleased to note many changes had been made to improve the
legislation compared to the bill that died on the Order Paper in
the last parliament. The previous bill reviewing CEPA was the
Liberal government's attempt to do a five year review of CEPA and
it failed.
For over nine months the government's second attempt to review
CEPA was under review by the Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development. Over 400 amendments were tabled in
committee. Reform fought hard to maintain the original intent of
the bill. Over 100 amendments were passed which changed the bill
significantly.
Canadians need the tools for environmental protection.
Amendments to this bill threaten to handicap Canadians with
unrealistic and unworkable regulations.
1305
What are the key problems with the committee's amendments to
Bill C-32? This is the big question. There are three main areas
of concern. One is ministerial power. The Liberals want to give
the minister too much autocratic power. The second is science
based decision making. The Liberals are allowing politics to
interfere with environmental decision making. That is wrong. The
third is a cost effective approach. The Liberals have not been
consistent in maintaining a cost effective approach to protecting
our environment. In fact, I do not think the concept of a cost
effective approach exists on the benches on the other side.
There are 11 other areas of concern which follow after the
committee amendments. I will name only a few. Among them are:
pollution prevention planning; limitless power of ministers to
interfere with exports; export of hazardous waste; environment
emergency planning; and the precautionary principle. All
references to cost effectiveness in the bill have been removed.
On the use of the word toxics the bill needs to focus on the
management rather than the use of toxic substances. On residual
powers, there are many areas of interdepartmental overlap and
duplication.
The Reform Party put forward amendments to address all those
areas of concern. Canadians will support legislation that is
practical and effective. Canadians need the framework to provide
for stability and economic feasibility. Legislation must enhance
our ability to improve environmental performance. Canadians must
be able to implement sustainable development and remain
competitive and profitable.
Our approach to the environment must be balanced. We need a
strong healthy economy in order to take concrete action to
protect our environment.
The Reform Party supports sustainable development which is human
activity that combines economic, social and environmental
considerations without compromising the well-being of existing
and future generations. We support the rationalization of federal
and provincial laws and the development of regional and/or
national environmental standards where appropriate. We support
the integration of social, environmental and economic objectives
into Canada's environmental management, philosophy, structure,
procedures and planning.
We feel that strong federal leadership is needed for a
commitment to sustainable development. This includes creating
partnerships with provincial governments, private industry,
educational institutions and the public in order to promote
meaningful progress in the area of environmental protection.
With respect to Bill C-32 we support the principle of
establishing and regularly reviewing standards that are based on
sound science and which are technologically, socially and
economically viable.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague for his comments on the bill. I
noticed my colleague talked about the need for sustainable
development and how we in the Reform Party are very supportive of
that.
An hon. member: That is a new twist.
Mr. Charlie Penson: We hear quite a bit of chatter coming
from the NDP, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure they will get up and
make their comments in due course on their own.
At the hearings we had for the trade committee in Winnipeg the
International Institute for Sustainable Development talked about
some destructive policies that occur especially by the use of
subsidies. They said that can hurt our environment and hurt the
drive for sustainable development.
They pointed to agricultural practices such as in the
Netherlands and even in Canada where subsidies have had the
negative effect of hurting the amount of topsoil in the last 100
years. Half of our topsoil has been depleted as a result of
practices largely encouraged by subsidies.
1310
They talked about practices in the Amazon, in Holland and in
Denmark in terms of how many nitrates go into the ground water as
a result of the heavy subsidies that take place. The heavy use of
nitrogen especially in agriculture practices because of the
subsidies that are used to produce food in those countries is
very destructive to our environment.
Does my colleague have any thoughts on how destructive these
practices are and the need to get rid of subsidies and get back
to a market economy rather than the use of subsidies as a way of
dealing with things to help clean up our environment?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the
thoughtful question by the hon. member for Peace River. He is
innovative in his thinking and I always appreciate it when he
asks intelligent questions.
Sustainable development is a very important concept. Whether it
is in foreign aid, even in CIDA where we spend lots of money, we
forget about the sustainable development part of it or the
benefits we are able to retrieve. Similarly on environment
issues when subsidies are given to certain companies they
lavishly spend them on fertilizers and so on.
My first degree is in agriculture. That is my background. I
understand the excessive use of these chemicals and how they
imbalance the properties of the soil and their adverse
environmental effects. I certainly agree with the hon. member for
Peace River that this is a bad concept.
As I mentioned, sustainable development is a human activity that
combines economic, social and environmental considerations
without compromising the development of existing and future
generations. It is definitely our moral responsibility to take
care of those things and hand over our environment and the planet
to the next generation in the form that we got them. That is our
moral obligation.
When we see all kinds of pollution taking place and all kinds of
chemicals being leached into the water, into our streams and
soil, and the air being polluted, it is a very important concept
that we focus on sustainable development. Whether it is
subsidies or other factors, they should be well taken care of.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we seem to be having a bit of a love-in today with members
climbing on board the environmental wagon. That is a good thing.
Obviously the environment should transcend partisan lines and
political differences so that we can pass legislation like Bill
C-32 that will put some teeth into the areas of enforcement in
dealing with toxic substances by giving the minister and the
ministry the powers that are needed.
I find it somewhat interesting though to hear members opposite
criticize the bill from the point of view that it gives too much
power to the minister or the ministry officials. In question
period they would be on their feet waxing somewhat indignantly
demanding action and that someone do something. There is a
little bit of a contradiction there. However in the spirit that
this debate seems to be exuding, I will try to stay away from
those aspects.
This bill is about a number of things. It is about toxic
substances, the testing, recognition and control of them, the
planning on how to eliminate them and the damage they do to human
health and to our ecology. It is about air quality and water
quality, things that are extremely important to all of us in our
ridings and in our large urban communities. It is about enforcing
and policing, which I think is long overdue, giving the
appropriate authorities the tools they need to deal with people
who violate.
I can tell stories about years gone by in Mississauga when
certain chemical companies and others, and in fairness to them it
was many years ago, were releasing some of their substances into
the storm sewers. This was back in the days when I was on city
council. Downstream we had situations where people were
panicking because there was foam bubbling up through the grates
of the storm sewers.
Kids were playing outside. No one knew what it was; they were
trying to figure it out. Through the region of Peel we
ultimately traced it back to the general area. Even though in
that particular case we were unable pinpoint the violator, we
called a meeting of all industrial companies in the area to show
them the damage.
1315
To be fair, I do not know if it was intentional, inadvertent or
otherwise, but someone poured some substances into the storm
sewer. This can have a devastating impact downstream on all the
creeks and streams in my community which ultimately lead into
Lake Ontario, from which we draw our drinking water. I should
hasten to add that we put it through a cleansing system. We do
not drink it straight out of the lake.
This kind of situation is extremely important. It is important
that we have a bill which gives the minister the authority to
order some kind of planning by potential industrial polluters
that could damage our water quality.
Air quality is another issue I find quite interesting. The
solution to dealing with waste in our communities over the years
in some instances has been to truck it out of the GTA into the
Detroit market and put it in an incinerator, at which point it is
burned and the prevailing winds bring it all back into Canada. I
am not sure that is a particularly intelligent way of dealing
with waste disposal. It is surely not an intelligent way of
dealing with air quality.
I want to talk about pollution prevention and sustainable
development, but before doing so I acknowledge the work by many
members on both sides of the House. I particularly want to say
that we are all busy doing various things.
My role as an MP over the past several months has been to chair
a task force on youth entrepreneurship. I have been travelling
all over the country. I also work on citizenship and immigration
issues. I have not had time to attend the environmental
committee hearings, but I have read them, followed them, talked
with my colleagues, and listened to presentations at caucus.
As all of us are busy doing different things in our
parliamentary lives, we rely on members who carry the torch and
candle for any particular issue. I would be remiss if I did not
acknowledge the tremendous work of the parliamentary secretary,
the member for Burlington, in the leadership that she has shown
in shepherding the bill through committee, through report stage
and on to third reading.
I acknowledge the member for Davenport, a former environment
minister and a man respected across the country for his
dedication to environmental issues and his hard work. The member
for Lac-Saint-Louis who is sharing my time has shown great
perseverance. For some years I have known the member for North
York to be totally committed to improving our environment, from
dealing with toxic substances, air quality and water quality, to
enforcement issues.
Of course there is the Minister of the Environment. Those of us
on this side are extremely proud of the efforts she has made at a
time when raising the environment to the top of the political
agenda was perhaps not as politically sexy as it once was.
Because of financial constraints and for all of the wrong reasons
the minister had to fight hard around the cabinet table. She has
worked with her members in caucus and in committee to ensure
these issues were brought forward.
I also acknowledge the work of the member in our caucus who
chairs the committee on sustainable development. That is the
member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who has worked doggedly to
bring forward and highlight these issues. I very much appreciate
that.
I noticed that provisions throughout the bill acknowledge the
roles of technology, technical knowledge and innovation in
securing the protection of the environment and human health for
Canadians today and tomorrow.
I recently had the privilege along with the minister responsible
for foreign trade of attending a team Canada trip with 62 young
entrepreneurs to Silicon Valley.
We visited the Alameda naval base, 1,700 acres of land in the
valley area outside Oakland. It is closed. On the edge of that
land is a landfill site full of toxic chemicals and live
ammunition. We actually had to sign a waiver before we went out
there in case we stepped on something inappropriate. I wondered
why we were going but in any event we survived.
1320
The purpose of my story is to tell the House that there is a
$160 million clean-up contract for that landfill site. It is
leaching right into the ocean. There is a $160 million U.S.
contract and there are eight companies involved in cleaning it
up.
Seven of those companies are Canadian companies and the lead
technology is from the University of Waterloo. We can be
extremely proud that in the area of environmental sciences this
country is producing the technology and the technicians to lead
the way in environmental clean-up. The eighth company, the
American company, is the one that hauled away the residue after
the treatment had taken place. We do have some things of which
we can be proud in the areas of technology and showing
leadership.
I will touch on another area of the bill which I think is
vitally important. We tend to think the best way to solve
problems is to wrap them around tax cuts or tax rebates for
people who show leadership in the area.
The bill provides the opportunity for an awards system. It is
my view that Canadians want to be recognized for contributing to
their communities. They want to be recognized for contributing
to improving the environment. What better way than putting it
into the bill? It allows an opportunity for an awards program.
They can with great pride put a plaque on a wall in the office or
in the study at home. They can share with their families and be
recognized for their vital contributions.
That is worth far more than some kind of income tax cut for a
company. It sends a message to all Canadians that we want them
to buy into cleaning up the environment. Some would say that it
is trite to say, but we have simply borrowed this space for our
children. We can hope that we leave it in better shape.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been in force for 11
years; it dates from 1988. Five years have already gone by
since the government presented its report recommending that the
legislation be reviewed.
For 11 years, therefore, we have been talking about introducing
legislation that would be more progressive and more consistent
with the latest advances in society. When the bill was referred
to the parliamentary committee, it was deficient in every
respect. It was certainly not as far-reaching or strong as the
previous bill, Bill C-74, which died on the order paper when the
last election was called.
After all the work done by the committee, the hundreds and
hundreds of hours spent by colleagues from all parties, I think
that we transformed a very imperfect bill into one that was
certainly improved, that represented a reasonable compromise
among members of all parties.
[English]
Then sadly big business went to work. When the bill came out of
committee and reached the House at report stage, the formidable
industrial lobby was in place. Eleven large big business
associations started to write letters to all parliamentarians
which filtered through the offices of the establishment and
started to level the usual threats at all parliamentarians. I
understand some members were reminded of the marvellous political
donations these big industrial giants gave.
1325
Among the usual threats was the threat of closure. That is
almost invariable. The aluminium industry said that if the bill
were not changed, it would physically close its aluminium plants
and take them somewhere else.
Another industrial group of associations said that if the bill
went through the way it was, all the wood burning stoves and
waste incinerators in the fishing villages of Newfoundland would
have to be closed.
Of course we listened. Sadly we always do. We always worry
about the formidable threats of the industrial lobby. We are
scared that it will move its plants and stop investments. It
always seems to work.
In some very key areas industry wanted diluted, we diluted them.
The precautionary principle, a key part of the bill, was diluted.
Inherent toxicity, another key element of the bill, was diluted.
Virtual elimination, which to start with was not very strong
because it did not go as far as the 1993 red book commitment of
phasing out the use of all toxic chemicals at source, only refers
to releases. Even then industry cried foul and it was diluted.
The minister's prerogatives in certain areas where our
jurisdiction is very clear, such as international air and
international water, was diluted in favour of the minister having
to go to cabinet to justify reports.
I am saddened that in certain cases such as inherent toxicity
the question never came up at committee. We were happy with what
was finally arrived at and suddenly there was a change.
With regard to virtual elimination, the irony is that the
definition accepted by the committee was the government's
definition. The government felt that the original wording in the
act when it came before the committee was very confusing. This
is what we all felt. With the help of people as highly placed as
the deputy minister, it was rewritten and re-presented by the
government in an amended form. We did not think it was perfect
but we agreed. Then big business said it went too far and the
government diluted its own amendment.
We finally found out that a little clause crept in somehow which
had to do with review of the act. In the original bill it was
supposed to be in place for seven years before being reviewed. We
amended it to five years, as it presently is, but now we find out
that the review might be carried out by either a House of Commons
committee, a committee of the Senate or a joint committee. Before
it had to be a House committee, but a little amendment was
included to say that it could be here or there.
What irony that a bill of the House of Commons, which has taken
11 years to create, would perhaps not be reviewed by us. If the
government does not like all the environmental cracks in
committee then it would send it to the Senate to be looked after.
This morning the cat came out of the bag. My colleague refers
to a love-in between Reform and the government today. I am sorry
to say it is like a blind date. The introducer of the two lovers
is big industry. They have found a way to get together and agree
on all the various amendments industry supported.
1330
The member for Nanaimo—Alberni made the admission, and I agree
with him, that all the work was to bring back the bill to what it
was when it arrived at committee. He said that the committee
must be balanced. What we did was to bring back the bill to the
point where it was before it went to committee, which means, in
logical fashion, that the committee means nothing at all.
Some will say, as do Reform members, that there must be a
balance between the economy and the environment. Investment and
business cannot suffer, as if they do when they are
environmentally friendly. All facts point exactly to the
reverse. I pointed out the other day that all of the firms which
have been environmentally friendly have increased their profits,
their investments, their presence and their labour force.
The 3M company, since 1995 when it instituted Pollution
Prevention Pays, has saved $800 million U.S. and tonnes and
tonnes of pollution, as well as United Technologies, Baum in
Germany, firms in Sweden and elsewhere.
The debate today is really about two points of view within a
system: the short term and the seven generations, the coin value
and the common weal value, the public good. In this balance
human health must have priority. It must always come first.
That is the side I happen to be on.
I would love to have been able today to stand to say that I back
this bill 100%. I am a member of the government. The reason I
am here as part of the Liberal Party is because I believe
strongly in its fundamental values. However, I cannot live with
the dilutions the government has brought forth on virtual
elimination, on the precautionary principle, on inherent
toxicity, on the minister's powers, and then the little sneaky
amendment about the Senate committee. I cannot live with those
things.
I want to be at peace with myself, regardless of how much I
suffer when I stand differently from my colleagues. I would like
to stand with them. Sadly, I cannot support this bill.
I saw this morning a parade of Reform members saying how much
they back this bill. I remember the debate on climate change
when they, almost like members of the flat earth society, said
that the scientists who were saying that climate change was a big
problem were wrong. When I see them today endorsing this bill I
say to myself that I must be on the right side. I might be one
of a tiny, tiny minority, but I believe in what I believe. I
think this bill is flawed and I will not support it.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate what the hon. member opposite said this afternoon. I
think it is commendable that he used the word balance. I would
like to ask the hon. member, what exactly does balance mean? I
would suggest to him that perhaps it is not an either/or
proposition.
It seems to me that to be environmentally friendly
is a good plan. It is economically sound. It is of social
benefit. It is not an either/or proposition. It is almost as if
all industry has to be some kind of an enemy to the environment.
That is not true. I do not believe that and neither does he, I
am sure.
I would like him to clarify exactly what he believes the word
balance means. What kind of balance would he propose for
industry and environmentalists?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, this whole debate
about balance is a red herring. There is no such thing. What I
believe in is total integration, the holistic integration of all
issues.
The environment and the economy are certainly not enemies or
adversaries. I never said that. On the contrary, I pointed out
that every business which has been environmentally friendly finds
itself being a better business. It makes more money and it is a
better corporate citizen.
However, laws are not made for the people who observe them.
If we all observed the laws the same way, we would not need laws
about red lights. We would not need laws about stopping at stop
signs. If everybody observed the speeding laws, there would not
be cops to catch us. We have to have laws for those who pollute.
It is a minority that pollutes and the laws are directed to that
minority, not to the environmentally friendly corporations. It
is to the minority that these laws are geared.
1335
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pose a question to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
We keep hearing about a lobby that was put forward by industry,
but is it not true that members of the committee received letters
from all sides on this issue and not just the one? In fact,
people passed along their views from all areas of society. I
know that I received those comments. I would like the hon.
member to comment on that.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, of course we received
letters from all sides, but the interesting point is that the
amendments reflected here on the key issues are not on the side
in which I believe. The side of big business was adopted almost
word for word. All of these letters threatened us. They told us
they were going to close the plants. They told us they were
going to shut down the wood-burning stoves and make us afraid.
They even sent threats saying that they give political donations
and that we should remember that.
There it is. The amendments that came in now, which I am
fighting against, were not the amendments we received and to
which I would subscribe. They were the amendments that big
business wanted. They must be jumping for joy today. That is
the sad part of it.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
thanking the hon. member for his thoughtful analysis, I would ask
him if he could once again elaborate on this issue of balance
which seems to cause a conceptual problem to members of the
Reform Party who have raised this issue all morning and who do
not seem to understand what really is the role of the environment
in relation to the economy.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue has to
be the total integration of the environment and the economy. It
goes back a long way, to the Brundtland report of 1987 and before.
Our aboriginal brothers and sisters have understood this for
10,000 years. They talk about the concept of seven generations,
that Mother Earth is one and that everything is connected to
everything else.
This business of saying that we have to have balance so that
nobody loses is completely passé. It has no place in society.
What we want is a holistic society of values, where all of these
things are interlinked.
If corporate business conducts itself in the manner of being a
good neighbour to the next door plant, the next door individual,
the next door stream or the next door lake, there is nothing to
worry about. There is no need for balance then. They will be
happier. They will make more money. They will be better
corporate citizens. They will not have people such as the hon.
member for Davenport or myself on their backs.
What we are against is those who breach environmental laws and
pollute the atmosphere. That is why we have toxic dumps like the
Sydney tar ponds and the arsenic leaching out of Giant Mines.
These are the people whom we are addressing in this legislation.
My balance, in those cases, is very much in favour of the
environment and human health every time. That is why I would
support a much stronger bill today.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Laval East.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32 at third reading. I was also
pleased to hear the speech by Quebec's former environment
minister, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, in which he took an
in-depth look at the environmental question.
The problem the Bloc Quebecois has is much more one of
jurisdiction. We do not agree with the double net theory. I now
turn the floor over to my colleague.
1340
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
continuing the debate at third reading of the Bill C-32, an act
respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the
environment and human health in order to contribute to
sustainable development.
With praiseworthy and environmental objectives, this new
legislation represents, once again, a centralizing focus in
which pollution prevention becomes nominally a national
objective, that is pan-Canadian.
However, we all know that the environment is a shared
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the environment is no doubt the
broadest and most encompassing and covers vegetation, animals
and humans. It includes the great planetary phenomena and the
smallest micro-ecosystems.
The Constitution cannot give the federal government alone total
jurisdiction over natural resources, energy, agriculture, waste
management, international treaties, fish stock management, air
and water quality, animal protection, land management and the
list goes on.
The federal and the provincial governments therefore share
responsibility according to the more specific nature of each of
the issues. Nevertheless, generally speaking, as the dissenting
opinion of the Bloc Quebecois pointed out judiciously in
response to the report of the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development, and I quote:
The provinces, including Quebec, have greater knowledge of the
specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to
arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local
residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups,
are able to conclude significant agreements with national and
international partners and have indicated their desire to find
solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively
to sustainable development.
The level of government closest to the reality experienced by
Quebecers is certainly not that of Ottawa.
Unfortunately, the inheritors of Trudeau thought opposite,
believe the contrary. Ottawa knows best. By way of illustration,
let us consider what the Liberal majority did during
consideration of Bill C-32 in committee.
The original version of the bill called for the federal
government to act within the spirit of the intergovernmental
agreements. The Liberals on the committee modified that intent
by amending it with the addition of the words endeavour to, so
as not to oblige or constrain the federal government to
co-operate with the provinces.
Faithful to their old ways, the federal Liberals prefer to see
the federal government dominate the provinces, instead of
working in close collaboration with them. They would have had
trouble finding a better example to demonstrate once again the
Liberals' obstinate refusal to respect the provinces'
jurisdiction over the environment.
This syndrome of dominant federalism lies, moreover, at the very
heart of the whole piece of legislation we are debating.
Starting with the preamble, the Liberals want to set out
national environmental standards and codes of practice relating
to ecosystems and environmental quality.
The preamble states that the presence of toxic substances is of
national interest.
The bill also states that environmental protection is a national
goal and to that end it creates a national clearing house on
pollution prevention.
As well, it gives the government the authority to establish a
national fuel mark, and a national mark for motors that comply
with these standards.
In short, what is better for stimulating the old Liberal reflex
of reliving the past, than a statement that everything is in the
national interest, in order to more easily invade areas of
jurisdiction by setting national standards, while of course the
National Assembly will not have a word to say in the matter.
1345
In theory, Bill C-32 acknowledges the environment as a shared
federal and provincial responsibility. In practice, however, it
is aimed at reinforcing the preponderance of the federal
government, the government of the best country in the world as
far as environmental protection is concerned.
Behind its noble facade, Bill C-32 is, in reality, nothing but a
reproduction of the duplications, overlaps and encroachments
into areas of provincial jurisdiction. In order to justify such
a waste of energy and public funds, the federal Liberals are
taking refuge behind a supreme court decision, the Solicitor
General of Canada v. Hydro Quebec.
At issue in that case was the jurisdiction of the federal
parliament over the environment. All the courts that had heard
the case before the supreme court had ruled that the federal
order was invalid. As a last resort, the federal government
turned to the supreme court and, surprise, even the friends of
the federal government issued a judgment that was not unanimous.
Four of the nine judges concluded, and I quote:
Granting Parliament the authority to regulate so completely the
release of substances into the environment by determining
whether or not they are “toxic” would inescapably preclude the
possibility of shared environmental jurisdiction and would
infringe severely on other heads of power assigned to the
provinces.
Unfortunately, the five other judges were more in line with the
centralizing vision of the federal government.
Contrary to the arguments put forth by the four judges of the
supreme court, the Court of Quebec, the Superior Court and the
Quebec Court of Appeal, the majority came to the conclusion that
it was wholly within parliament's power to enact laws on the
environment, under the Constitution Act, 1867.
This ruling violates the very principle of equality between the
federal government and the provinces regarding the protection of
the environment. It states on the contrary that the provinces
have a role to play in this area only if it complements that of
the federal government. So, the supreme court tells us that if
there is a dispute between the federal and provincial
governments, it is Ottawa that has the final say.
Today, the federal government is using that ruling to increase
its legislative powers regarding the environment.
As usual, the Liberal government is forgetting its fundamental
legislation, the Constitution, which recognizes that the
environment is a shared jurisdiction, in order to subordinate
the role of the provinces to big brother in Ottawa.
I would like to give a concrete example of the ridiculous
situations in which we will find ourselves if this bill is
passed. The legislation puts the spotlight on pollution
prevention and includes the power to require pollution
prevention plans. This implies the development of a direct
partnership between the federal government and the industrial
sectors targeted.
The problem is that such partnership programs already exist
between the Government of Quebec and certain industrial sectors.
One example is the program to reduce industrial waste, now
operating in the pulp and paper sector. Duplication? Certainly
not.
What the federal government hopes to do is force the provinces
to adopt its regulations, or it will deal directly with the
individuals, organizations or industries concerned. Overlap?
No, no, no. In order to get what it wants, the Liberal
government is barging in and upsetting the very consensus it
should be trying to create in as sensitive and troubled a field
as the environment.
Ultimately, this disagreement over Bill C-32 is rooted in two
visions of the same reality, two ways of doing things that have
nothing to do with any failure to respect the Canadian
Constitution.
Short of eliminating the provinces, the Liberal government must
at all costs impose an effective centralizing power in order to
maintain political cohesion in the rest of Canada. The Bloc
Quebecois respects this vision, and the rest of Canada has
already accepted it with the social union agreement, for one.
1350
The Bloc Quebecois feels that Quebec as a nation would be better
served if it had one fully responsible government, rather than
eleven with partial responsibility. Hence our notion of
partnership with the rest of Canada, with respect for our
different ways of seeing and doing things.
In this context, Bill C-32, with its heavy dose of paternalism
and domination, would no longer have a place. Two sovereign
nations would mutually agree to emphasize prevention and
protection of the environment and human health in order to
contribute to sustainable development.
[English]
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pride that I rise today to address what very well
could be one of the most important pieces of legislation the
House deals with. I make that statement due to the fact that
there is no greater issue any government could address than that
of our environment.
There are few pieces of legislation that touch every facet of
Canadian life and this is one. I would hope that all members of
the House recognize this indisputable fact. If we recognize
this, I would then suggest that the debate be centred around the
support of the legislation and the responsibility that we have to
Canadians. To do otherwise simply states that we are not
prepared to safeguard our country nor our planet for future
generations.
The buck stops here. If we cannot demonstrate the vision
necessary to ensure our children are provided with a better and
healthier environment, we should ask ourselves what we are doing
here.
There are groups that will try to convince members, through
misleading statements, accurate facts and through nothing more
than fear-mongering, that the legislation is not necessary. They
are wrong. They are not doing a service to the country or to
future generations by opposing such an important and critical
piece of legislation.
Since 1988 the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly
known in the House and across the country as the CEPA, has been
the cornerstone of federal environmental and health protection
legislation.
One of the most critical components of the bill allows for the
control of toxic substances, a topic that many members are well
aware is near and dear to my heart. It will be in this area that
I will concentrate my remarks.
It is in regard to Bill C-32 that they take full advantage of
the advancements in environmental science, policy and law over
the past decade. Concepts like sustainable development and
pollution prevention have been widely accepted and needed to be
incorporated in our laws. We are quite simply strengthening the
CEPA in line with these concepts so that the government will be
better able to protect the environment and the health of
Canadians from the dangers of toxic substances.
Many toxic substances do not stay put once they are released
into the environment. Toxic substances, such as mercury and PCBs
for example, have been found in the blood of aboriginal peoples
in communities high in the Arctic located far away from
industrial development. One might ask how this could happen.
Substances are transported to remote areas and pristine
environments through air currents. They have long term adverse
effects on the health of the people and wildlife who breath the
air, drink the water or consume the food contained therein.
Canadians are concerned about the risks that toxic substances
pose to their health, to their children's health and to the long
term environment of Canada.
What will Bill C-32 do to reduce or eliminate this threat? The
good work that is already underway to identify and manage toxic
substances will continue. The bill will introduce innovations to
allow more efficient and effective government action in carrying
out these activities.
As a result of the amendments made during the committee stage,
the bill requires the Ministers of the Environment and Health to
conduct research on hormone disrupting substances. I should add
that the government has already acted to meet the requirement
under a $40 million toxic substance research initiative, a
commitment the government is very proud of.
The legislation requires that all 23,000 substances in Canada
are looked at to determine if they are toxic. Committee
amendments require the first stage, and the biggest step of this
mammoth undertaking, to be completed within seven years.
It also incorporates into the legislation key features of the
federal toxic substances management policy which sets out
precautionary, proactive and accountable rules for dealing with
toxic substances; an absolute must, I suggest.
1355
Bill C-32 incorporates the precautionary principle. This means
that the government will not have to wait for full scientific
certainty before acting to prevent an environmental harm. Quite
simply, our aim is to take all reasonable precautions to reduce
or eliminate the exposure of Canadians to toxic substances.
Bill C-32 will impose new deadlines for the development of
preventative or control actions. It will require the Minister of
the Environment to propose concrete actions to prevent or control
the release of substances within two years of declaring a
substance toxic. These preventative or control actions must be
finalized within the following 18 months. These are the kinds of
checks and balances we must have and they are the kinds of checks
and balances that the Liberal government puts forward.
The goal of virtual elimination is a new term to the CEPA. The
Government of Canada recognized in its 1995 toxic substances
management policy that our traditional approach of managing the
release of toxic substances into the environment through their
life cycle is not sufficient in the environment today. Toxic
substances that require stricter management actions result
primarily from human activity. They persist in the environment
for long periods of time and are referred to as bioaccumulative.
They are toxins that are stored in living tissues. Quantities of
these substances may build over time to levels that have serious,
long term adverse effects to the environment and to human health.
Once in the environment—
The Speaker: It is almost 2 o'clock and you
still have four minutes left in your time. I wonder if you would
prefer to have four minutes after rather than just one or two
minutes now. If you agree with that, we could go to Statements
by Members and then you would have the floor when we come back to
debate.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I will resign myself to
your direction. If that is most comfortable for the House, I
would be more than happy to take part in the debate after
question period.
The Speaker: We will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WORLD POPULATION DAY
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, July 11 is
World Population Day, a day for us to reflect on the issues that
challenge us globally.
A key issue of population and development is access to education
for the 1.06 billion people, almost 20% of the world's population
between the ages of 15 and 24. This is the largest generation of
young people ever in history.
These young people have enormous potential to effect the
development of their countries and we must support efforts that
encourage their positive involvement in building strong
societies. It has been demonstrated that in emerging nations,
access to education results in slower population growth, better
hygiene and improved economic circumstances.
I therefore encourage the Government of Canada and the Canadian
International Development Agency to support initiatives to ensure
that young people, especially in developing countries and in our
native communities, receive adequate primary education.
* * *
BILL C-55
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-55 is going through the Senate now with last minute amendments
to reflect a so-called deal reached with the Americans to provide
subsidies to the Canadian magazine industry.
However, there is one thing the government seems to have
forgotten. We have commitments under NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization which promise something called “national
treatment”. Any subsidy we give to the Canadian publishers must
automatically be made available to American and foreign
publishers that are operating in Canada.
I find it absolutely ludicrous that the government would
seriously commit to throwing away hard-earned taxpayers' dollars
in this fashion. Does the government not understand the
international agreements that it has signed?
I say we should forget the subsidies. Let the magazine industry
compete on its own merit. We should have more confidence in the
abilities of our Canadian publishers to carve out lucrative
Canadian markets for themselves without coming to Ottawa cap in
hand.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week, we celebrate Canadian Environment Week, and
tomorrow will be the first Clean Air Day in Canada.
The theme this year is Community Action on Clean Air and Climate
Change. This day relates to two priorities of the government,
those of improving the quality of the air Canadians breathe and
of fighting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
1400
Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment announced proposed
new regulations to give Canadians cleaner air and better health
protection by reducing air pollutants from gasoline vapor.
The proposed regulations would limit the flow of gasoline to a
maximum of 38 liters per minute during vehicle refueling,
thereby cutting down on the release of gasoline vapor and
limiting environmental damage.
In order to celebrate Clean Air Day—
The Speaker: The member for Whitby—Ajax.
* * *
[English]
LEUKEMIA
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
June is Leukemia Awareness Month. An estimated 3,300 Canadians
will be diagnosed with leukemia this year and an estimated 2,100
Canadians will die of leukemia in 1999.
Unfortunately relatively little is known regarding the causes of
leukemia. Health Canada is currently studying the causes of
leukemia as part of the department's ongoing enhanced cancer
surveillance system.
Leukemia accounts for almost one-third of all new cases of
cancer in Canadian children and teenagers and is the most common
cause of death. Cancer is the second leading cause of death
after injuries in Canadian children and adolescents aged one to
nineteen.
Health Canada's childhood cancer surveillance and control
program will contribute substantially to improved childhood
cancer control in Canada through an ongoing surveillance of
treatments, outcomes and studies of cancer patients and healthy
controls.
The initiative to have June declared Leukemia Awareness Month
comes from the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
1999 GALIEN CANADA AWARDS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 13, three Galien Canada awards were given out in Montreal
honouring excellence in pharmaceutical research in Canada.
The 1999 award for innovative drug product went to
Lipitor—atorvastatine calcium—developed and marketed by Parke-Davis
Canada.
The award for research went to Dr. Jack Hirsh, Director of the
Hamilton Civic Hospital Centre and Vice-President, Research of
Vascular Therapeutics Inc. for his work in epidemiology and
management of venous thrombo-embolic disease.
Finally, the Belleau-Nickerson award, presented to a product that
has distinguished itself by making a significant contribution to
pharmacotherapy and a social and economic impact, was given to
Eli Lilly Canada for its product Prozac—Fluoxetine.
I would like to congratulate all the winners and encourage them
in their research.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I regret to inform the House that the farm income crisis on the
prairies has resulted in tragedy.
Today I was informed that a Saskatchewan farmer who was
struggling to keep his farm operation going committed suicide.
That is how bad it is on the prairies. This farmer was willing
to take his own life and leave behind his family including two
young boys because he could not no longer deal with the struggles
of farming.
Our agriculture minister has said that his new farm aid package,
AIDA, as well as NISA and crop insurance were enough to get
producers through this crisis. Evidently it was not enough for
this farmer.
The farm income crisis is far from over. Grain prices are not
improving and input costs continue to rise. The number of calls
coming into the Saskatchewan farm stress line in 1999 is already
well above the monthly average for 1998.
It is time for the government to wake up. Help is needed on the
prairies and its current solutions are not working. How many
more tragedies does it take before the government realizes that
its farm disaster program is not helping the farmers who need it?
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Statistics Canada announced that the gross domestic product
rose 0.3% in March, in part because of a solid performance in most
sectors.
The net result of such a performance was a strong economy, which
meant job creation in all regions of Canada, and an improved
quality of life.
Such statistics also indicate that the Liberal government is
assuming responsibility for managing the Canadian economy. As
the bottom line, Canadians will be the ones to reap the benefit
of the wise decisions our government has taken.
I would remind hon. members that we have continued to work at
eliminating the deficit and have encouraged investment in order
to stimulate regional economies and job creation.
This is a demonstration, backed up by figures, of the
performance of the Liberal government in the areas of finance
and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlesbourg.
* * *
KHALID BUTT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be the host, today and tomorrow here on the Hill, of
the MP for a day from Charlesbourg, Khalid Butt. He will be
with us for 24 hours.
Khalid was the big winner in the second MP for a day contest in
the riding of Charlesbourg. He won out over close to 1,200
competitors.
1405
During his time in Ottawa, Khalid will be able to see what being
an MP is all about, and will have a taste of the hectic life on
Parliament Hill. He and his father, Mahmood Ahmed Butt, will
have the opportunity to meet with the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois and all of our caucus members. Tomorrow morning, Mr.
Speaker, you too will have the pleasure of meeting with this
young man.
Khalid, on behalf of all of my colleagues in this House, welcome
to parliament. Enjoy your visit.
* * *
RURAL COMMUNITIES
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in April
of next year, my riding of Brome—Missisquoi will host the
Canadian conference on rural communities.
People from all regions of Canada will gather in Magog-Orford to
exchange views on the concerns and needs of our country's
regions. The conference will deal with important issues relating
to rural life which, as members know, is very different from
living in urban centres.
I am pleased that an event of that magnitude will take place in
Magog-Orford, and I have no doubt that the participants will
appreciate our hospitality and our beautiful region.
Rural regions are the soul of this country. They are often the
cradle of a rich heritage, a way of life and a mentality that
truly reflect the values that have shaped our nation.
* * *
[English]
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker,
Canadians were pleased to see a hero of our own
Take flight and soar above the clouds, now Julie's on the
phone
She's talking to the PM and we can't imagine why
She'd take time from her busy day to listen to that guy
It really makes you wonder 'cause they're opposites you see
The differences can be revealed when looked at carefully
Julie, she is out of sight; the PM's out of touch
Julie makes Canadians proud; the PM? Not so much
Julie makes us raise a glass; the PM makes us fret
Julie is an astronaut; the PM's a space cadet
Julie gives us hope that if we try we can succeed
The PM takes all hope away by taxing without heed
Julie works together with her colleagues all the time
The PM gets the whip out when his don't fall into line
Julie will come home to cheers of hip-hip and hooray
The only cheers the PM gets is when he goes away.
* * *
WESTERN CANADIAN TASK FORCE
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's task force on the four western
provinces had great meetings in the west and British Columbia in
May.
In a statement in the House last week the member for Kelowna
left a totally false impression in the House. Not only were the
meetings a great success but they were very open, open to the
press and open to the public.
The member for Kelowna indicated that the Reform Party had to
send spies in to see what was happening. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
The member for North Vancouver dropped into the hearings and was
told what a poor job he had done to represent the area. The
member for Kelowna neglected to tell the House that the mayor of
Penticton extended her personal thanks to the senator from
Okanagan—Similkameen for all the assistance he had given in
helping her with all the work in the west.
The Reform member for Kelowna personally thanked the Liberal
caucus for helping—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Nova Scotia another
landmark decision was set in the country for human rights.
Mr. Wilson Hodder and Mr. Paul Boulais after a four year
struggle finally won the right to spousal benefits under the
Canadian pension plan after the death of their partners, Mr.
Terry Martin in 1994 and Mr. Grant MacNeil in 1995.
Last May, Nova Scotia was the first province to allow same sex
benefits for employees. Now it appears that the federal
government is prepared to honour the commitment of section 15 of
the Canadian human rights charter that each and every one of us
is treated legally and equally before the law.
We all know that the loss of a loved one is a tragic event. The
grace and dignity displayed by Mr. Hodder and Mr. Boulais show
each and every one of us in the House the grace, quality and
dignity of these two fine men.
We in the NDP wish to say congratulations to Mr. Hodder and Mr.
Boulais and to their legal team of Ms. Lynn Reierson and Ms. Lara
Morris for a job well done.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since France's ban on asbestos was announced, Quebec has been
trying in every possible way to save this major industry and the
numerous jobs that are at stake.
The Bloc Quebecois has done the same by inviting diplomats
posted here in Ottawa to visit the asbestos region, and by
asking the federal government to lodge a complaint with the WTO,
something it took over two years to do.
1410
Recently, the Quebec government asked the federal government to
allow Quebec officials to plead the case of the Quebec asbestos
industry before the WTO. This is a legitimate request, since the
case was prepared by Quebec officials.
Why and in the name of what logic did this government decide to
exclude the Quebec government from this case, if not to put
partisan politics before the interests of Quebecers?
* * *
[English]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a recent poll conducted by Ekos Research found that
57% of Canadians would vote Liberal. This support was found
right across Canada, which has Liberal support at 58% in British
Columbia, 60% in Atlantic Canada, 65% in Ontario and 54% in
Quebec.
It comes as no great surprise to me that the Reform Party is
losing its support across Canada including in western Canada.
With my 26 years in politics I saw it coming.
I have some advice for the Reform Party: do not desert the
sinking ship; sell it.
* * *
GLOBAL VISION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, Global
Vision was conceived nine years ago as an opportunity for
Canadian youth to better prepare themselves for the challenges of
the new world of international business. Today this is becoming
more and more important as more than one in three jobs in Canada
is created through exports.
Currently youth are being selected from junior team Canada
regional training centres, like the one conducted in my home
province of Halifax at St. Mary's University last week. Potential
candidates are being interviewed in order to select the best
possible people to participate in upcoming economic missions
including southeast Asia this summer and Latin America in the
fall.
I congratulate the partners in the Global Vision program who
made all of this possible. They are here today at a special
luncheon hosted by the Speaker. I wish all of them the very best
as they prepare leaders in global business for Canada for the
21st century. They are doing a terrific job in preparing Canada
for these challenges.
* * *
SKILLS CANADA
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a great Canadian event is happening in my riding of Kitchener
Centre, the Skills Canada competition.
Over 1,500 students from across Canada will participate in the
Skills Canada competition that highlights the importance of
trades and technology. Twenty thousand visitors and spectators
are currently descending upon Kitchener for what is sure to be
the trade and technology event of the year.
The key to this event is partnership. Skills Canada is
supported by a variety of private sector companies, the
provincial government and the city of Kitchener. Together we
have clearly demonstrated a strong commitment to Canada's youth
and their future.
I extend my best wishes to the organizers and participants of
Skills Canada for a successful event. I look forward to joining
it tomorrow.
* * *
SUMMER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in the House to extend a warm welcome to the participants
in Reform's 1999 summer internship program. This summer 13
students drawn from universities across Canada are in Ottawa to
gain valuable experience working for Reform members of parliament
in Reform research and communications.
The 1999 Reform summer interns are: Stephen Murphy from
Newfoundland; Heather Shillington and Paul Barnes from Nova
Scotia; Lana Bryon, Ray Novak, Chris Schafer, Siobhan Thomas and
Steve Cull from Ontario; Shuv Majumdar, John Gardner and Pierre
Polivre from Alberta; and Heather Brown and Reesha Namasivayam
from British Columbia.
Drawn from a pool of over 180 applicants, these 13 individuals
represent the best of a new generation of Canadians interested in
learning about the parliamentary process and dedicated to
building a renewed Canada for the future.
On behalf of the Official Opposition I welcome Reform summer
interns and wish them an enjoyable and educational stay.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, World
Environment Day, proclaimed by the United Nations in 1972 and
celebrated on June 5, will be the grand finale to Environment
Week. The theme this year is “Community Action on Clean Air and
Climate Change”.
The environment is a topic of increasing interest to Canadians
and Quebecers. That is why individual and group action is so
important.
Thanks to the hard work of members of the community, it is
becoming possible to meet the challenges of climate change, air
and water pollution, and the protection of natural habitats.
Tomorrow, June 2, we will celebrate Clean Air Day.
By taking up the challenge to use public transit, motorists in
many cities will be contributing to the quality of our
environment and of the air we breathe.
1415
During Environment Week, we are proud to celebrate the progress
made, but we must continue to encourage more and more people to
take up the challenge of the environment.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the office of Prime Minister is more important than the
person who occupies it and the integrity of that office is more
important still. Serious allegations have come to light
surrounding this Prime Minister's use of public funds
particularly in his own riding: grants announced before they were
awarded; a personal aide under investigation for influence
peddling; contracts awarded to political contributors.
Does the member for Saint-Maurice believe that these actions
enhance the integrity of the office of Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a lot of the words used by the Leader of the Opposition
are not at all factual. He refers to aides and so on. What I
have done is what every member of parliament has an obligation to
do and that is to make sure that the programs that apply to the
constituents under the job creation program apply to the people
who voted for the member for Saint-Maurice just as the programs
apply to the members for Prince George—Peace River,
Kootenay—Columbia, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Dauphin—Swan
River, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Cariboo—Chilcotin, and so on.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister tries to excuse these shady activities
by saying he is only doing what other MPs are doing.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. Leader of the
Opposition to be very judicious in his choice of words.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, no other MP has
arranged a loan and a grant for someone who just bought a hotel
from them. That is the Prime Minister's speciality. If it is
jobs the Prime Minister wants, why does he not cut taxes in his
riding?
Will the Prime Minister not admit that these activities are
inexcusable for any member of parliament but particularly for a
Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate that he is
left with nothing except to try and attack the personal integrity
of a member of parliament who is working for his constituents. I
have done this for 36 years. With great pride I stand here and
say I will always defend the best interests of my constituents so
they can have a good living in the great country that is Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not just petty patronage and petty abuses of
power. This is patronage and abuse of power connected with the
office of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised he
would be different yet he slipped into a pattern of patronage and
cover-up and abuse of power that makes his predecessor look like
a saint.
In light of what has now happened, what is the Prime Minister
going to do to clear the air?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is standing in this House and he is
very clear on what happened. I have helped my electors. If
anybody can prove anything, they should have the guts to make an
accusation to say that I have benefited personally from any of
the things I have done to make sure that my electors were treated
like the electors of any riding in Canada.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister said he has helped his electors. He sure has
helped a couple of them anyway.
Mr. Gauthier got a $6.3 million CIDA contract. That was after
donating more than $43,000 to the Liberal Party, $10,000 of which
went to the Prime Minister's own campaign for goodness' sake. We
also know that Gauthier paid $525,000 for an undeveloped piece of
land from a company in which the Prime Minister has a financial
interest.
Why is the Prime Minister sullying the position and reputation
of the office of the Prime Minister this way?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member just made an accusation that is untrue.
I sold the shares of this company before I became Prime Minister
in the fall of 1993. It is very clear that I did this. The
ethics counsellor said that to the House of Commons.
I know that Reform members are so desperate that they only get
pleasure when they are very deep in mud.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
deep in mud is one thing the Prime Minister ought to know because
he is right there right now.
The Prime Minister promised that things would be different when
he was Prime Minister. Well he was right. They are worse. They
are different all right.
The Prime Minister bent all the rules in announcing a grant
before the government department announced it. We know that. He
made sure a CIDA contract was awarded to one of his cronies who
then turned around and bought a real good deal on land.
Does the Prime Minister not think that the reputation of his
office is more important than feathering the nests of his—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again accusations.
The minister can give the information about the case. There was
a bid. He was the lowest bidder. He put $2.5 million on the
table. The second bidder was $2.5 million above the bid he made.
This is a company that has done business with Hydro-Québec, many
other corporations and the federal government over the last 20
years.
They can make all the accusations they want, but if they look at
the facts they will recognize that it is the lowest bidder who
got the contract as is required by the rules of the
administration of the Canadian—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as was
recently the case in cultural matters, the federal government
has yet again cavalierly dismissed a request by the Government
of Quebec to be in attendance at the defence of the asbestos
issue before the World Trade Organization.
Asbestos is produced in Quebec, and all Quebecers consider that
their government in Quebec City is directly affected by the
decision that will be made by the WTO.
How does the Prime Minister explain to Quebecers the federal
government's refusal to allow the Government of Quebec to be
present while it defends Quebec's position before the WTO?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the
hon. member that I disagree with the premise of his question.
In fact, I was in a meeting with the hon. member's minister of
trade who said to our Minister for International Trade that he
was very pleased with the assistance of the Canadian government
in this matter and other trade matters.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary has probably not been very well informed
by his minister, since the Minister for International Trade
received a letter from Bernard Landry asking to be present at
the defence of asbestos before the WTO. He also called the
Minister for International Trade, who rejected the request.
I would like to know how the Canadian federation would be
weakened and threatened by the presence of the Government of
Quebec in the Canadian delegation at the WTO?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should know that the Minister for International Trade in fact has
been waiting for such a letter and has not received one.
1425
The hon. member should also know that this is a French
regulation. As such the Government of Canada has taken time, has
spoken with the industry in Quebec, has spoken with the
Government of Quebec and has worked with all the stakeholders to
make sure that the strongest possible position is being put
forward at the WTO by this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
everyone, including the federal government, the expert on
asbestos is Quebec. This is so true that federal officials were
constantly drawing on this expertise as they prepared the file.
How does the Prime Minister explain the need to draw on Quebec
resources in the preparation of the file, but the fact that
their presence at the WTO is considered to serve no purpose?
Would it not be a further guarantee of success?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the trade critic,
the hon. member should know that the Government of Canada invites
provinces to the table when their specific provincial program is
being challenged by another country. In this case it is the
Government of France's program that is being challenged by
Canada. Through that process the Government of Canada has spoken
very closely with all the stakeholders including the Government
of Quebec to get all the information it needs to present a very
strong case.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is true
but it is an on-site presence we want.
Whether it be the presence of British Columbia to defend the
case of Pacific salmon or that of Quebec to defend asbestos,
does the federal government not understand that its chances of
success increase considerably with the co-operation of those who
are really concerned and best informed in the matter?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said to
the hon. member and his leader, the co-operation with the
Government of Quebec, as said by its own minister, has been
exemplary. He told the Minister for International Trade at a
meeting of all the trade ministers that in fact the co-operation
was very good.
I will tell the hon. member again, it is the position of the
Government of Canada when it is a challenge of a provincial
regulation, then the provinces are at the table. In this case it
is a challenge of a French government regulation. In fact, it
was the Government of Canada, not the Government of Quebec which
first took this issue on on behalf of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
* * *
ELECTORAL REFORM
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
More and more Canadians are growing dissatisfied with the way
our electoral system works. They want a system that encourages
them to vote their values. They want a system that encourages
them to vote for what they want instead of what they do not want
and they want more representative results.
With that in mind, I ask the Prime Minister this. The first
past the post system does not do this and lately has tended to
regionalize our political parties in parliament. Would the Prime
Minister consider establishing an all party committee in the fall
to look at electoral reform?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way
will know that we went through a one year review process by a
parliamentary committee. No recommendation of the kind that he
is speaking of was ever made by his party or anyone else. Also I
intend to table improvements to the electoral law very shortly in
the House of Commons.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the committee that the member talks about was not
looking at electoral reform.
I asked the Prime Minister a decent policy question. He
complains about mud slinging. I ask him a decent policy question
and he does not get up on his feet. I am asking him now. This is
a decent question. Will he set up a committee in the fall to
look at electoral reform?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a system that was established in Canada a long
time ago. I know that for almost as long a time the NDP and its
equivalent have tried to form a government and they have failed.
As they cannot win with that system, they want another one. I
think the one we have now has served Canada pretty well so far.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the past
five years Transelec Inc. gave $28,000 to the Liberal Party, on
top of a $5,000 donation to the Prime Minister in 1993 and a
$10,000 donation to the Prime Minister in 1997. Meanwhile
Transelec president and part owner Claude Gauthier paid half a
million dollars for land from the Prime Minister's numbered
company.
It comes as no surprise that Transelec got a $6.3 million CIDA
contract at the expense of legitimate companies like Markham
Electric.
1430
Did the Prime Minister, his office or his agent intervene in any
way to ensure that his pal was awarded the contract?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this contract was awarded according to the rules in
place. An independent selection committee picked the winner of
this contract. It was given based on the lowest price, $2.5
million lower than the next bid.
Members opposite have to stop with these innuendoes and
accusations. They sully the name of parliamentarians who do
their work honestly.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the longer the
Prime Minister stays in office, the richer his friends become. He
hides behind—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I want the hon. member to go
directly to his question.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell
us if he is staying on for any other reason besides making it to
the millennium and lining the pockets of his friends?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
a happy coincidence that the lowest bidder on the CIDA contract
happened to be the highest contributor to the Liberal campaign.
The Prime Minister justifies this incredible string of
coincidences by saying that he is just trying to create jobs in
his riding. In spite of his generous use of Canadian taxpayers
money, the unemployment rate in that region has stagnated at more
than 12% for the last five years.
Since it is obviously not jobs that the Prime Minister is
creating, it seems the only thing that he is creating is
increased donations to his elections funds. How does he explain
that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important for the member for Saint-Maurice to
work for his constituents when the level of unemployment in his
riding is so low.
The member should be ashamed to reproach a member of parliament
who has been elected for a long time and who has always done his
job. He is trying to destroy my reputation because I want the
level of unemployment to go down in my riding as I would want for
any riding, even the ridings of the people who are making those
silly types of accusation because they have nothing else to say
in the House of Commons.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earth to the Prime Minister, the job he is doing in his riding is
not working. There is 12% unemployment and it is staying there.
It appears that the Prime Minister has created a new expression
which says “It is better to give so that you can receive”.
When this member makes public announcements that essentially
force officials to do his bidding, when convicted criminals and
self-confessed embezzlers receive grants and loans, when
businessmen buy land that benefits the Prime Minister, when they
receive huge government contracts to follow that up with huge—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to
please go to his question.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, when we add that up, the
Prime Minister has gone way too far.
Why did the Prime Minister use the prestige of his office to
benefit his political party and himself?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these innuendoes are absolutely unacceptable.
This contract was awarded by an independent committee made up of
representatives of the government of Mali and one outside
contractor. CIDA was there as an observer only. There was
nobody from the Prime Minister's office present.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade
indicated earlier that he was still waiting for a letter from
the Government of Quebec on the asbestos issue.
He is probably not up to date on the matter, because his
minister received a letter on January 27, 1999 from the
Government of Quebec repeating its request to be directly
involved in all stages of the proceedings.
This is my question for the Prime Minister: What the explanation
is for the federal government's refusal to make room for Quebec
on the Canadian delegation in this specific issue of asbestos,
when it is debated at the WTO?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in January 1999 the
minister of Quebec sent a letter to the Government of Canada
requesting that.
It was later said that the premier of Quebec wanted to write the
Prime Minister on this issue to make it much more strongly and we
have not yet received that letter.
1435
The hon. member knows that the Government of Canada has
consulted widely, not only with the industry and the stakeholders
but with the Government of Quebec. We have asked for its advice
and we are presenting its arguments today before the WTO.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of International Trade's response to the Government of
Quebec on March 5 was a bit of a farce. He wrote “This is why,
under the circumstances, I cannot respond favourably to your
request to take part in the coming hearings of the special WTO
group on the Canada-France dispute concerning asbestos”.
I ask the Prime Minister, who is perhaps better informed, where
the terrible threat would be to Canada, to the Canadian
federation, in having Quebec representation in the asbestos
dispute in the WTO, even if this is, in the eyes of the Quebec
Liberal MPs, asking too much, since they are so used to making
no demands?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should know that Liberal members on this side have approached the
Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Minister for
International Trade. They lobbied very hard on behalf of their
province to make sure that a strong position was put forward at
the WTO.
The March response was Quebec's response to the letter sent by
the Minister for International Trade. In a sense, Quebec told
the minister at that time that because it was a French situation
it wanted to deal with it and that the Government of Canada does not
provide a seat for the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister would have us believe that Shawinigan is the
coincidence capital of Canada.
When Mr. Duhaime received nearly $1 million in federal
government money to refurbish the hotel beside the Prime
Minister's golf course, a grant that helped to increase the value
of the golf course, was it just by coincidence?
When Mr. Gauthier received a $6.3 million CIDA contract after he
bought land owned by the Prime Minister's cash starved golf
course was it just another coincidence?
Why did the Prime Minister use the public's money to reward
favours and buy votes?
The Speaker: Order, please. These questions are
impugning motives. I am going to permit the Prime Minister to
answer this question, but I think we are over the line here.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, we have reference to a golf course that has not
belonged to me since November 1993.
If they have any decency, they will make a clear accusation that
I have a conflict of interest and have the guts to make it
outside. We will meet them in court after that.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's own ethics counsellor has said
publicly that the Prime Minister knew in January 1996 that the
sale of his part ownership in the golf course had not and would
not go through. He is therefore wrong when he says he does not
own it any more.
People who had business dealings with this same property have
mysteriously come up with grants, loans and CIDA contracts. Is it
not true that the Prime Minister's personal financial interest in
these related business dealings puts him in a clear conflict of
interest?
1440
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will believe until I die that I sold the share in
1993. I was informed by my trustees that the money has not been
paid. I tried to get paid. I quit this company before I became
Prime Minister. I have had no interests at all in that golf
course since that day. This has been made very clear but members
continue to make accusations and innuendo. They continue to make
this accusation of conflict of interest inside of the House where
I cannot take them to court.
The members of that party are desperate because they are
sinking. They have absolutely no sense of respect for the
institution and the sense of honour.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
self-styled backroom boy of the federation, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs claims to be the one who brings
Quebec's concerns to the attention of his cabinet colleagues.
Can the minister tell us what sort of advice he has given the
Minister for International Trade that he is refusing to allow
Quebec to be present to defend asbestos before the World Trade
Organization?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, backroom boy is the nicest thing the member has ever
called me, and I thank him.
Second, Quebec will be present at the table, because Quebecers
are Canadians, and the Government of Quebec has been extensively
consulted. There have been no fewer than 23 meetings between
October 6, 1998 and April 29, 1999. The Government of Quebec
helped draft the Canadian submission and will be briefed every
evening of these important negotiations with respect to
asbestos.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec is
the second largest producer of asbestos in the world.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who has given
much though to federations around the world, tell us why the
fact that Quebec is accompanying the federal government to
defend asbestos before the World Trade Organization constitutes
a threat to Canada's unity?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, winning a round against the WTO means playing by the
WTO's rules. That is very important. There can be no question
of the loot politics the Bloc Quebecois usually relies on in
trying to achieve winning conditions. This is too important.
The rule is that, if one of Quebec's regulations were involved,
the Government of Quebec would be an observer at the table. But
a regulation of the French government is at issue. We want to
win, and we are going to play by the rules and do just that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this question is to the Prime Minister.
Claude Gauthier purchased half a million dollars worth of land
from the Prime Minister's golf course. Coincidentally, it was
just a month after his company received $6.3 million in a CIDA
contract.
The Prime Minister makes a lot of his ability to represent his
constituents. Did he ever make representations on behalf of his
constituent, Gauthier, to the minister then responsible for CIDA,
the current Minister of Human Resources Development?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I never mentioned anything to the minister.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister said in the House last October 9, “The Prime
Minister has never lobbied or influenced me. Good projects are
part of the role of a good member of parliament”.
Given that the minister prides himself in his objectivity, will
he tell the House whether or not the Prime Minister or his
representatives ever approached him for a CIDA contract for
Claude Gauthier and his company?
1445
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps if I keep repeating the same thing over and over
the people across the way will understand.
It was an independent selection committee made up of two
representatives of the Mali government, an outside consultant,
with a CIDA observer that gave this contract to this firm. That
is the way it was done. It followed the rules.
These people are too busy trying to sully the name of a person
who served Canada for over 35 years.
* * *
[Translation]
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on the weekend, the Minister of Finance opened the door to a
third phase of the infrastructure program. However, the minister
provided very few details.
Can the government give us the assurance that the provinces will
be in charge of the possible third phase that was announced on
the weekend?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first
infrastructure program was clearly a success.
It was a success because it was a model of co-operation between
the municipalities, the provincial governments and the federal
government.
If a new infrastructure program is put in place, and no one gave
assurances to that effect, even though municipalities often ask
us for such a program, we will try to apply to same rules that
were used during the first phase of the infrastructure program,
precisely because it was so successful.
* * *
[English]
POVERTY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Labour.
There is much concern across Canada about the needs of low
income families and children, and the problems of poverty and
homelessness in particular. What has the minister done to
address these issues?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have put in place a secretariat. We have 19
different departments which deal with homelessness and we are
co-ordinating the program so that we can meet the needs of the
homeless.
We have also put 10 facilitators in 10 Canadian communities who
are going to work with the municipalities and the provinces to
make sure that all of the programs for the homeless are
co-ordinated.
I will be travelling all of July and part of August to meet with
the municipalities and the provinces, as well as various
non-profit groups.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us review the facts. First a friend of the Prime Minister's
gives him $15,000 in contributions for his personal re-election
campaign. Then he gives another $28,000 to the Liberal Party of
Canada. Then he buys a parcel of land from the Prime Minister's
numbered company for over $500,000. Lo and behold, the same Mr.
Gauthier received a $6.3 million CIDA contract and was
subcontracted to do a $190,000 paving job on the Prime Minister's
driveway.
If this is not a conflict of interest, just what is a conflict
of interest?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, whatever happened to a new way of doing things in the
House of Commons? I have never seen such despicable behaviour.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I guess when one hits a
sore point members opposite understand.
I have been in the House for over 10 years and never have I seen
such shameful behaviour by members of parliament. They are
sullying the names of all parliamentarians, including their own,
by this kind of behaviour.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is right. I thought we were going to get a
different kind of government. The Liberal red book said: “This
erosion of confidence seems to have many causes; some have to do
with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an
arrogant style of political leadership”.
If we had seen this same pattern under the previous Conservative
government, the Liberals would have been crying bloody murder and
the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have been jumping over
furniture.
Will the Prime Minister tell us how he can excuse himself from
this kind of very clear conflict of interest?
1450
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe I have been very clear. I will repeat that I
sold the shares of this company before I became Prime Minister.
I know that the truth does not interest them. I know how
nervous they are because what was to be the united alternative is
the de-united alternative. I am sorry that most probably their
leader will disappear. He is a great asset to the Liberal Party.
* * *
CANADA POST
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, rural and remote regions have seen a decline in services
from Canada Post. A supermailbox cannot replace a helpful
Canada Post employee.
Canada Post could find $200 million to give to the government.
However, it cannot find a penny to increase rural services and
provide rural route carriers with basic rights.
When will this government stop siphoning millions of dollars
from Canada Post and start reinvesting in services for our rural
communities so that every Canadian will receive the same level of
service?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is
working very hard to improve service in rural communities. As
a matter of fact, for the first time mail is being processed in
rural communities. Previously it was sent to major urban
centres.
We are looking at ways to improve the policy for giving
contracts for mail route delivery. We are working very hard and
we will continue to work hard. What is important is that
Canadians receive good postal service and can have trust in their
post office.
The results, audited by two auditors, tell us that we are—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
* * *
[Translation]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the same
advertorial of the Atlantic Progress that I referred to
yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources stressed that the
east coast oil and natural gas resources are developing and
expanding.
In particular, the minister said he was excited by the
significant new economic opportunities that this development
would bring to the Atlantic provinces.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. May
northeastern New Brunswick also rejoice and benefit from the
economic opportunities to which the minister is referring?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, judging by the hon. gentleman's news releases, which
contain the most intemperate and insulting language, I doubt that
he really expects a serious answer to what should be a serious
question for the people of Atlantic Canada.
In fact, the development of offshore resources holds huge
potential for the people of Atlantic Canada. This government has
helped to foster those resources.
In terms of the development of laterals within the boundaries
of a province, that obviously falls within provincial
jurisdiction. It may also be of interest to regional development
agencies. As far as the Department of Natural Resources is
concerned, the economics—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister can do three simple things to clear
the air over this growing scandal.
He can release the 363 pages withheld from the member for
Markham's access to information requests. He can disclose all of
the documents regarding the CIDA contract to Claude Gauthier. He
could direct the auditor general to investigate this entire
matter by invoking section 11 of the Auditor General Act.
I ask the Prime Minister, why will he not do these three simple
things?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the contract was awarded according to the rules in place
at the time. It was a competitive process. It was awarded by an
independent committee to the person with the lowest bid. It was
$2.5 million lower than the other bid.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister spoke of being a good
member of parliament. Good members of parliament certainly
should not approve grants and loans to questionable individuals
in their ridings, particularly before receiving departmental
approval. Certainly, a good member of parliament should not be
funnelling $6.3 million to Liberal supporters who bailed out his
own troubled numbered company.
1455
Can the Prime Minister explain how such a blatant abuse of
taxpayers' money is his definition of being a good member of
parliament?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Transelec has done work with CIDA before. It actually
worked on a contract awarded in 1985 to do similar work in Togo.
To my recollection it was the Mulroney government that was in
power at the time.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has
been reported recently that the government may be considering the
introduction of a new infrastructure program to help with
rebuilding roads and bridges.
I know my colleagues in the Tory party are not interested, but I
would ask the President of the Treasury Board if that is the case
and if such plans are in the works.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
given the success of the infrastructure program there is no doubt
that quite a number of municipalities would like to see it
renewed.
In terms of need, there is no doubt that there is a need and we
are ready to listen to the various requests to see if they fit
within our budgetary framework.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us hope that no new infrastructure program requires the approval
of the local MP. We can see that might just be a bit of a
problem.
After 36 years of political IOUs, it is now payback time, big
time. Mr. Gauthier contributes tens of thousands of dollars to
the Prime Minister's campaign and to the Liberal—
The Speaker: Order, please. I want the hon. member to go
to his question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is very
simple. Is the Prime Minister so ethically and morally blind
that he cannot see a problem with this?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that any sensible person would understand that
when there is a bid and one bidder is $2.5 million lower than the
second bidder, the government got a good deal when it gave that
contract.
The opposition would not be very happy if the bidder had not
received the contract and the government had spent $2.5 million
giving it to a contractor who nobody knew. We saved $2.5 million
in giving this contract to the lowest bidder. For me it is very
clear and I am very happy with the system because it is doing
what has to be done for the good of the taxpayers of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for years the
Minister of Human Resources Development has been hemming and
hawing, hiding behind unfinished studies, rather than announcing
the changes that would restore some sense to the employment
insurance program.
Does the minister realize that, at a party meeting in Quebec
this weekend, his colleague the Minister of Finance also said
that he was waiting for the essential corrective measures to
employment insurance? What, then, is the Minister of Human
Resources Development waiting for before moving on this, since
he is the only one responsible for the delay?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance
acknowledged what we all acknowledge, that our government has a
duty to control, and to very closely monitor, the impacts and
consequences of our employment insurance reform.
I have stated in this House that we were aware that there were
certain difficulties, particularly those relating to women's
access to employment insurance. At this time we are involved in
an examination of a number of proposals on what we could do to
facilitate the situation. This is quite simply our duty to the
people of Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
case the Minister of Finance is enjoying this question period, I
have a question for him.
1500
There are hundreds of capable public servants in his department
who are able to write budget speeches. Yet the minister paid
$104,000 of taxpayers money to three outside consultants to
polish a 29 page speech. That is at a cost of $3,500 a page. Let
us hope the minister does not catch a case of verbal diarrhea; he
would bankrupt the country.
I know the minister is obsessed with his image, but can he tell
us why he paid so much money to three Liberal hacks?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
Let me simply say that it was not for speech writing. Certainly
it was part of the reason, but in addition there was an entire
communications plan, an entire strategic plan laid out.
As well, in the busiest four months before the budget there was
the whole question of setting up the website. We were one of the
one of the hottest websites in North America following the
budget. I would recommend to all members after the next budget
that they look at our website. It is really worth while.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
asked the Minister of Natural Resources on many occasions if he
is considering a carbon tax. The answer has repeatedly been no.
Yet a 25 member transportation panel looking at ways to reduce
greenhouse gases states that transportation bureaucrats,
lobbyists and business representatives are closely examining a
fuel tax.
My question is fundamental. If the government is not interested
in a carbon tax, why is a 25 member panel examining a fuel tax?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the beginning of the follow-up process after Kyoto
the provinces and the federal government agreed that there should
be an open, inclusive, transparent process involving all
Canadians in which all options would be reviewed and the costs
and the benefits analysed so that all governments, not just the
Government of Canada but the provinces, the municipalities, the
private sector and all Canadians, could have a full and rational
assessment of all the costs and all the benefits.
* * *
VACANCY
SASKATOON—ROSETOWN—BIGGAR
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a
vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Mr. Chris
Axworthy, member for the electoral district of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, by resignation effective May 31,
1999.
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act,
I have addressed today my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer
for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this
vacancy.
* * *
1505
THE LATE DOUGLAS HARKNESS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is with sadness but also honour that I rise today to
pay tribute to the late Hon. Douglas Harkness who died in Calgary
at the age of 96.
His gallantry during World War II was recognized by the awarding
to him of the George Medal, truly an exemplary accomplishment.
Mr. Harkness was elected to the House of Commons in 1945 and
retired in 1972 as the member for Calgary Centre. Those 27 years
of public service were ones of great change and great challenge
in Canada. He helped mould those changes on both sides of the
House and in the cabinet room.
Those members who came to parliament after the second world war
must have been a very distinct breed. They came from the
battlefields directly into the House, determined to build a great
nation. They recognized the debt owed to their comrades in arms.
They had a vision of a better country and they set about to bring
that vision to fruition.
This was reflected in Mr. Harkness' first speech in this place.
He had served in the Royal Canadian Artillery and yet his first
act when he appeared in the House of Commons was to make a plea
for better treatment for the foot soldiers in the Canadian Armed
Forces, the lowest paid men whom he regarded as being part of the
most significant effort in the war in Europe. He championed
better pay and conditions for the services which are more in
keeping with the risks they run and the conditions they endure.
The Canada that we see today is different from what we saw in
1945. Douglas Harkness and his family, his wife and son who
predeceased him, helped build this into a better nation.
I am very honoured to stand in this place and express the thanks
of Canadians for his decades of public service and express our
regrets and sympathies to his family on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer a
tribute on behalf of the government to the Hon. Douglas Scott
Harkness who served his country with integrity and conviction
both in the military arena of World War II and in the political
arena of the House of Commons between 1945 and 1972.
[Translation]
As a member from Alberta, I am particularly honoured to
recognize the political and military contributions of Mr.
Harkness.
[English]
Douglas Harkness distinguished himself at war through his
courage. Indeed he was awarded the George Medal for bravery for
his actions in helping to evacuate troops when a flagship he was
aboard was torpedoed. He earned the respect of his superiors and
was promoted to lieutenant colonel and served as a commander
during the invasion of Normandy.
Upon his return from the war Douglas Harkness demonstrated his
leadership qualities by helping to shape the political landscape
of his country. First elected as MP for the riding of Calgary
East in 1945, he was returned after the redistribution of seats
as the MP for Calgary North.
Under Prime Minister Diefenbaker, Douglas Harkness served in a
variety of portfolios, including Minister of Northern Affairs and
Natural Resources, Minister of Agriculture and Minister of
National Defence. For a time he was Alberta's only
representative in cabinet.
One of his legacies as Minister of Agriculture was to bring a
degree of stability to agriculture by establishing the Prairie
Farm Assistance Act. He maintained his attachment to the land
and was very proud of it. In fact, even as he represented his
constituents in Ottawa, he continued to file his income tax as a
proud farmer.
Of course that for which he will be most remembered politically
is his stand as Minister of National Defence on the issue of
nuclear arms. At odds with then Prime Minister Diefenbaker as to
whether Canada should arm its Bomarc missiles with nuclear
warheads, Douglas Harkness tendered his resignation. In his
statement to the House on February 4, 1963, he stated:
I resigned as a matter of principle. The point was finally
reached when I considered that my honour and integrity required
that I take that step.
It was a division, a stand which would lead to the defeat of the
Diefenbaker government.
For only the second time in Canadian history a government was
overthrown by a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons.
1510
Teacher, farmer, soldier, legislator, Douglas Harkness
exemplified the ability to both serve and lead. Having left an
indelible mark on the military and political landscape of the
country, he was inducted as an Officer of the Order of Canada in
1978.
On behalf of the government I would like to ask all colleagues
to take the time to reflect on the contributions of a former
politician, a man of principle, a fellow Albertan, who made a
real difference in the country's history.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to salute a great Canadian and Calgarian,
the Hon. Douglas Scott Harkness.
Douglas Harkness has been described as a man of gracious
character, of steely resolve and a true gentleman, a good
combination. He was a teacher and a farmer, an outstanding
soldier, politician and statesman, so he fully deserves the
appellation “great”.
Mr. Harkness developed an interest in politics while teaching
school. Small wonder perhaps, for the school's principal was
William Aberhart, the first leader of the Social Credit movement
in Canada.
While overseas in 1945, Lieutenant Colonel Harkness was proposed
as the federal candidate for Calgary East. He was notified by
cable and accepted the nomination after consulting with his
fellow officers. He was elected in Calgary East in 1945 and
returned to parliament in 1949.
Following the 1952 redistribution he was elected in the
constituency of Calgary North, the riding I now represent as
Calgary—Nose Hill. Mr. Harkness was elected in that riding in
1953, 1957, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1968. Nine election
victories are a testimony to the high regard in which Calgarians
held Mr. Harkness.
Appointed to the cabinet in 1957 he subsequently served as
Minister of Agriculture. He took great pride in securing
programs to assist the farming community. Mr. Harkness was
appointed Minister of National Defence in 1960 at a time when
Canadians were vigorously debating foreign and defence policy,
particularly surrounding the cancellation of the Avro Arrow and
the introduction of the Bomarc missile with its nuclear warhead.
During the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, Minister Harkness took
a politically courageous and very responsible decision to place
the Canadian military in a state of high alert despite the
indecisiveness of the prime minister of the day. Mr. Harkness
continued to disagree with the prime minister on issues of
national defence and resigned from the cabinet. The government
fell in a non-confidence motion the next day. Mr. Harkness was
re-elected, as pointed out earlier, and served in the opposition
until his retirement in 1972.
The military career of Mr. Harkness, while briefer, was as
brilliant as his political record. A militia officer, he went
overseas in 1939 as a captain in the artillery. He served in
Britain, Sicily, Italy, France and Northwest Europe, the last
year as a lieutenant colonel and commanding officer of the fifth
anti-tank regiment in the fourth armoured division. He was
awarded the George Medal in 1943 for his action in organizing the
evacuation of a troop ship that was torpedoed on route from
England to Italy.
Much more could be said about this wonderful man, his early
years, his distinguished family, his combat record and his
achievements in the community. I have only touched the surface.
I am honoured to have been able to stand here and pay a brief
tribute to Mr. Harkness, a most outstanding and remarkable man.
I join with others in the House and in Canada in extending
condolences to the family and friends of this great Canadian.
1515
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
pay tribute to Douglas Scott Harkness, former member and
minister, who died on May 2 at the age of 96.
Mr. Harkness was born in Toronto in 1903. He studied at the
University of Alberta, after his family moved to that province
in 1910. He was a teacher and a farmer. During the second world
war, he served in the armed forces in Europe from 1940 to 1945.
It was, in fact, while he was in Europe that he received a
telegram asking him to run as a Conservative in the general
election of June 1945.
He was first elected to the House of Commons to represent the
voters of Calgary East.
During his career in politics, he served as northern affairs and
natural resources critic. In 1957, he was appointed Minister of
Natural Resources and acting Minister of Agriculture. He served
as Minister of Agriculture until 1960, when he was appointed
Minister of National Defence.
As such, he took part in the important debate that caused such a
furor at the time on the appropriateness of the Canadian Armed
Forces having nuclear weapons. The position he defended on this
did not prevail and he accordingly resigned his post in 1963.
He continued to represent the voters of Calgary Centre until
1972.
After retiring from political life, Mr. Harkness returned to
agriculture. In 1978, he received the Order of Canada.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and on my
behalf, I would like to extend my sincere condolences to his
family and friends.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the NDP caucus I would like to join with
representatives of other parties and all members of the House of
Commons in expressing our condolences to the family of the late
Mr. Douglas Harkness and in saying a few words of tribute to his
career in this place, to his service to his country during World
War II and to his work as a teacher and a farmer.
I remember the night Mr. Harkness resigned. I was only 12 years
old but I was paying attention to politics at the time. I
remember that when Mr. Harkness resigned it precipitated the fall
of the Diefenbaker government in 1963. This was something to be
noted, not the resignation per se or the fall of the government,
but the fact that somebody would resign on a matter of principle
knowing the consequences for himself personally and knowing the
consequences for the government led by his own party.
This is something that happens rarely in Canadian politics, too
rarely I might say. I am sure there are occasions when this
would have been the thing to do but it is not done any more. It
is a tradition of Canadian parliamentary life which has fallen on
bad times and is no longer thought to be the thing to do.
I remember that with respect, even though the principle on which
Mr. Harkness resigned is not a principle I shared with him. I am
sure my NDP colleagues at the time did not agree with him with
respect to the arming of Bomarc missiles with nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless it was a principle he held and upheld and was
willing to go to the wall for politically. We have to admire
that.
We pay tribute to that and to his 27 years in this place, to his
distinguished military career. As I said before, we extend to
his family our sincere condolences.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an
act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the
environment and human health in order to contribute to
sustainable development, be read the third time and passed.
1520
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleagues for waiting with bated breath over question period
to hear my closing remarks on the issue of Bill C-32 and more
specifically concentrating on the toxic substance contents of the
legislation.
As I was mentioning, the quantity of these substances can build
up over time. They cause long term, serious, adverse health
effects both to the environment and to people. Once in the
environment these substances will continue to damage our health
and the health of our ecosystems over many generations through a
subtle effect of endocrine, immune, reproductive and other
sensitive biological systems. Virtual elimination is necessary to
protect our health and that of our environment.
Bill C-32 allows for creative approaches in controlling toxic
substances to achieve results faster and to provide greater
flexibility. A reactive or control management approach is often
costly and time consuming. In some circumstances traditional
regulations remain the best solution. However, they are only one
of several tools that Bill C-32 places at our disposal. These
tools include pollution prevention plans, voluntary initiatives
and economic instruments such as tradable permits to control
toxic substances.
These new tools focus on environmental results rather than the
means by which they are achieved. They give operators the
flexibility to incorporate cost effective measures that suit the
needs without the direct intervention of the government as long
as the required environmental protection objectives are met. This
results often in a greater reduction in toxic emissions that
would otherwise be achieved through traditional regulatory
approaches.
Canada can learn from actions of other countries as well. For
example, Bill C-32 requires the federal government to review the
decisions and control actions of toxic substances taken by other
countries to determine if they are relevant and applicable to
Canadian situations. The government will regularly review
decisions taken by provinces in Canada or by member countries of
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to
substantially restrict toxic substances.
We have listened to the concerns of Canadians about toxic
substances. I believe the environmental legislation before us
today addresses these concerns. A strengthened CEPA will provide
the Government of Canada with the tools needed to protect the
Canadian environment and the health of Canadians.
I urge the House to support the legislation and give it speedy
passage so that Canada will be an environmental leader in the
21st century. It is our responsibility as members of parliament,
as the Government of Canada and as proud Canadian citizens to
make sure this piece of legislation goes through. Our children
and our environment are depending on it.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a couple of years ago a concerned citizen came to my office in
the riding of York North. He was very concerned about the health
of the trumpeter swan in the Wye Marsh. He was very concerned
about what was happening around lead contamination. I understand
the member for Simcoe—Grey has some of the Wye Marsh within his
riding. I was wondering what he was doing to help his
constituents on this very important problem.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague
for her question. It is an issue that is certainly near and dear
to my heart and impacts my riding as well as ridings all across
the country.
As late as about three weeks ago I introduced a private member's
bill banning lead sinkers and jigs. Although it was deemed to be
a non-votable item at that point in time, we were successful in
securing the support of the Minister of the Environment. At this
time I would certainly like to thank her and congratulate her for
rising to the challenge.
The lead sinkers and jigs issue that is impacting Canadians all
across the country is a crucial issue and it is a hidden issue.
Most people in the House and in fact all across the country did
not realize the severity of the situation regarding the deposit
of lead sinkers and jigs in our Canadian waters. At that time I
drew a scenario. It is actually taking place as we speak today
and throughout most of the year. It boils down to that this
legislation will help through community buy ins, support in that
sector and identifying it as such a toxic substance as it is in
Bill C-32.
Between 500 and 600 tonnes of lead are deposited in Canadian
waters every year.
The analogy I used was approximately 500 half-ton pick-ups fully
loaded with lead lined up bumper to bumper. That is the kind of
situation which is taking place with respect to lead being dumped
in Canadian waters.
1525
I was proud to address that issue on behalf of not only the
constituents of Simcoe—Grey, but also people who are impacted in
all areas of Canada. That is certainly one measure where I think
the government has been very proactive and will continue to be
so.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
three weeks ago 28 experts, scientists, medical doctors,
researchers, environmental lawyers and public policy experts
gathered on Parliament Hill and met with members of parliament
and senators at EcoSummit '99. The summit examined air
pollution, the link to human health and what is required for
healthy public policy development.
Two very important messages emerged. First, the health and
scientific experts unanimously agreed that medical and ecological
information clearly indicates that we face pressing health
problems as a result of airborne contaminants. Second, we as
parliamentarians have a responsibility to act and we must act now
in the public interest.
EcoSummit participants, eminent leaders in their fields
including a former Royal Society president, felt it was crucial
to bring their research to the attention of parliamentarians.
There is a fundamental need to develop a relationship of
collaboration between scientists and parliamentarians to promote
healthy public policy.
Dr. David Bates, a pioneer in and an internationally renowned
expert on the study of air pollution in human health for over 50
years asked tough questions about Canada's readiness to take up
the challenge of effectively dealing with the problem of airborne
contaminants and human health. In his important book
Environmental Health Risks and Public Policy: Decision Making
in Free Societies, Dr. Bates provides an approach for better
integrating medical and health public policy making. Dr. Bates
clearly takes a stand on the side of public health.
In his book he quotes American Senator Edward Muskie and
principal author of the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments. Senator
Muskie said:
Our responsibility is to establish what the public interest
requires to protect the health of persons. This may mean that
people and industries will be asked to do what seems impossible
at the present time. But if health is to be protected, these
challenges must be met. I am convinced they can be met.
And so am I. Unfortunately, Bill C-32 will not do this.
Throughout this debate I have implored my colleagues on both
sides of the House to consider very carefully the impact of the
amendments that we had before us at report stage. Now I ask my
colleagues to very carefully consider the effect of this
legislation in its final form.
Let us not forget our duties and obligations as
parliamentarians. We must first establish what the public
interest requires to protect the health of persons. This is our
challenge.
The fundamental question before us now is, is Bill C-32 written
as if the health of Canadians mattered? How each of us in the
House responds to this question as our words are recorded in the
Hansard of this debate or in the way we vote tonight on
third reading will define us.
I have heard members in the House say that we must balance the
environmental concerns with economic concerns, that without
economic growth and profit we will not have the resources we need
to protect the environment. This is absurd. They forget that
without a healthy environment the economy will suffer. Have any
of the members opposite heard anything about the Atlantic and the
Pacific fishing industries?
Trickle down economic policies have not worked for the poor. To
the contrary, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened.
Trickle down environmental protection will not work either. The
connections among economic, equity and ecological factors are
inextricably woven. It is in fact a seamless web of
interdependency. It is irrational, foolhardy and dangerous to
overlook this.
The aggressive industrial assault against any positive
environmental measures in Bill C-32 is precedent setting. The
fact that parliament has so fully incorporated their concerns is
shameful.
1530
As one of three Liberal members who has worked on this bill from
before its inception during the original CEPA review in 1994,
through the government response in Bill C-74, CEPA 1996 and the
committee process reviewing Bill C-32, CEPA 1998, I would have to
say that the bill currently before the House is a pale reflection
of the piece of legislation it could be, a bill that has been
fought over by this unprecedented industrial lobbyist assault, by
the machinations of other government departments and by pressure
from the provinces.
What has finally emerged is a bill weakened by a thousand cuts,
a bill so anemic it cannot be supported. My decision not to
support Bill C-32 has been made after much thought and
deliberation.
For the past five years I have spoken with leading experts from
the fields of health, ecology, law and economics, and it is very
clear that most recommendations that would make this bill a good
bill were ignored.
For months during committee hearings and now during the days of
debate in the House some of my colleagues and I have continued to
raise issues of concern. Unfortunately there are many. I would
like to reiterate only some of the most problematic ones.
There has been a weakening of the virtual elimination
provisions. The residual nature of CEPA has been emphasized by
restricting the authority of the Minister of the Environment to
act in relation to other departments.
Additional barriers to action by the federal government have
been created by lining the bill with the harmonization agreement
with the provinces. Overall new hurdles have been created on
acting in a precautionary way. There has been a shift away from
pollution prevention.
While there are elements in Bill C-32 that would improve the
existing CEPA, for example the electronic environmental registry,
legislation of the National Pollutants Release Inventory and new
powers for enforcement, these do little to overcome the
cumulative damage made by all the other changes that weaken Bill
C-32.
If I were to rewrite Bill C-32 I would ensure that it was real
pollution prevention legislation, that there was a focus on
generation and use, not just releases. I would ensure that
pollution prevention plans were mandatory and automatic once
toxic substances have been identified and not have to wait for a
listing of toxics.
Pollution prevention planning leads to eco-efficiency for firms,
which means better toxics management, reducing costs for industry
and government. As well, the Ministers of the Environment and
Health should be the ones making environmental and health
decisions, not economic ministries.
More than anything, if I were to rewrite this bill I would make
sure that CEPA respected subpopulations such as children.
Children are not small adults. If we set environmental standards
which created healthy public policy, as if the health of our
children mattered, then everyone would gain.
There are other groups of Canadians who require special
attention. Canada's northern people live with the consequences
of toxic chemicals that are created outside of their homelands.
They catch food that is contaminated and mothers' breast milk has
unacceptable high levels of PCBs. If we respect these Canadians
we must write environmental legislation as if their health
mattered.
If I were to rewrite this bill I would listen to the hundreds of
witnesses, from aboriginal people to scientists, to medical
doctors and researchers, to lawyers and labour groups, to health
child specialists, experts on learning disabilities,
environmental groups, enlightened industry representatives, who
gave us a wonderful and rich set of recommendations to choose
from when the committee wrote the review and put forward very
clear and damning criticism when the legislation was before
committee.
I want to thank all of these incredibly hard-working individuals
who, with few resources but with much wisdom and foresight,
provided the committee with the evidence to make this a better
bill.
Even though some say we have failed because this bill is a mere
shadow of what it could be, I say that we have succeeded in
creating a benchmark against which all of us in the House will be
measured. It is a legacy that some day we will return to.
Some say that politics is the art of the possible, but I say
that the art of possible is doing the seemingly impossible.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague for the hard work she and others have
done in contributing to the debate on Bill C-32.
I suppose there are some of us in the House who have supported
the bill. I would point out that in terms of an industrial
barrage of lobbying, I know that I have seen in my time here
lobbying that was much more intense, for example, the lobbying
over the bank mergers, and yet our government decided to disallow
bank mergers at this time.
1535
We have lobbyists and we have lobbyists. I am sure there are
lobbyists on the environmental protection side of the issue.
Therefore, to say that this bill is the result of an intense
industrial lobby is perhaps somewhat unfair.
In my experience in the forest products industry we had a number
of concerns with legislation that was introduced by the Ontario
government during the NDP period which concerned the use of the
best available technology. What that legislation did was to say
that, notwithstanding the cost, if there was technology in place
that would allow the removal or elimination of certain
pollutants, then the law required that the best available
technology be implemented. For example, if emissions could be
reduced by .000 and it cost $1 billion, to use a ridiculous
example, the legislation said that would have to be implemented.
I know there are differences of opinion on this issue in the
House, but on the concept of virtual elimination I think there
was a legitimate concern by industry that we were going to be
chasing molecules or those pollutants that are not measurable by
any reasonable standard and investing millions of dollars of
capital to reduce pollutants which are really having no
significant impact at all.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my
colleague that $1 billion to change technology to deal with an
environmental issue is absurd. Certainly that is the kind of
absurd sort of scaremongering that we were subjected to by the
industrial lobby assault against this bill.
I would like to point out to my colleague that the issue of
virtual elimination, the definition itself, as originally posed
in Bill C-32, was so incomprehensible that it could have led to
three different kinds of interpretation. Uncertainty for
industry is a big issue. However, it was the deputy minister of
Environment Canada who put forward an amendment through the
government which changed the definition at committee. The
definition is exactly the same as it is in the toxic substance
management policy. In 1995 stakeholder groups, including
industry stakeholder groups, signed on to the toxic substance
management policy, which has exactly the same definition as Bill
C-32. They agreed with it. I have not seen industry pouring out
of the country in the last five years.
My colleague says that we should not be chasing the last
molecule, which is true. That is what it says in the toxic
substance management policy. However, what industry lobbyists
tend to forget is what happens on the second page of the toxic
substance management policy, which is to say that the ultimate
objective is to go toward virtual elimination without
consideration for sociological and economic factors. That has
often been missed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-32 is undoubtedly a major bill, but it is very
disappointing.
It is disappointing to Bloc Quebecois members and to those
Liberal members who are most involved in the environmental
field. I can think of the hon. member for Davenport, who is also
the chairman of the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis and
former Quebec environment minister, who also voted against the
bill, and the hon. member for York North, who also sits on the
committee.
If those Liberal members who are most involved in the
environmental field voted against Bill C-32, as was the case
yesterday, does it mean that all Liberal members who have some
common sense should follow suit? These are members who have put
a great deal of time into studying the bill clause by clause,
and now they are voting against it.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, indeed the member
opposite sat through many hearings and was involved with the
environment committee and part of the CEPA review. I know how
much he cares about the environment because of the contribution
he made.
1540
He asked why there are members on this side of the House who
have decided to vote against this legislation. This is a
democracy. I am very proud of my government because I have the
opportunity, as someone who has worked diligently on this file,
who understands it and who knows the legislation inside and out,
to say that this bill is not good enough. I have decided that in
my own conscience, because of my own feelings and my own
understandings. It is not good enough for the people of York
North. It is not good enough for the people of Canada. This is
a democracy and I have the right to express my opinion in the
House.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek
unanimous consent to extend the question and comment period for
another five minutes. This is such an important bill and such an
important debate that we on this side of the House would like an
additional couple of minutes to ask a few questions of the member
for York North.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore has requested the
unanimous consent of the House to extend the period for questions
and comments by five minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing
my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore.
This legislation is a continuation of the Liberal agenda to
deregulate. It is a total corporate agenda, a cave-in to a lobby
group. In effect, what we have is a virtual environmental
protection act. The term virtual has come to mean that it is not
real.
We have heard all day that this bill is supposed to be balanced.
We are trying to accommodate the economy as well as the
environment. We have heard members of the Reform Party say that
they are in favour of sustainable development, as well as Liberal
members. In fact, they are having a love-in with the Reform
Party in support of this environmental protection bill, which in
fact is not going to protect our environment.
We are supposed to accept the virtual elimination of the most
deadly poisons and toxins known to man, when what we need is the
phase-out of persistent organic pollutants. These are heavy
metals. They are DDTs. They are truly unmanageable poisons and
that is why we do not want them in the environment. We cannot
accept any level of these toxins because we cannot manage the
effects of them. We cannot manage the effects of endocrine
disrupters. How low will we allow sperm counts to go before we
say no, we cannot accept this any more? How many mutated embryos
will we accept before we say no, we have to stop the actual
generation and sale of these poisons because we cannot manage
them within our environment?
Newer research is clearly showing that we are affected by very
low levels of toxins; not just megadoses of poisons that cause
cancer, but very low doses of common poisons in our environment,
such as nitrates that we use as fertilizer and soaps that we use
in cleaning.
The worst thing is that we do not know what the combination of
these toxins will do to our children and to our health. We do
know that it is not a benefit for us to have them within our
environment. If we ignore the effects we will be propagating
them by not going forward with environmental protection that is
preventive and not crisis oriented, trying to clean up the mess
at the other end.
When it comes to the north, the Arctic contaminants report has
clearly stated that the north and the people of the north are
disproportionately affected by these poisons because they stay
there. They do not go anywhere else. We have lead, mercury and
DDT levels that are unacceptable in mothers' breast milk.
The people who live in the north do not have the opportunity to
go to a health food store to get organic produce. People who
live in Old Crow, who want to buy some milk for their child, are
looking at triple the cost which is paid by those living in a
southern community. It is just not reasonable to expect these
people, if they are concerned about their health and the levels
of contaminants in their environment, not to live off the caribou
and the fish which are coming more and more sparsely up the river
to Old Crow. They have to depend on the country's food, the
indigenous food, to bring up their children in good health.
1545
It does not show concern for the northern people and the effects
that these poisons have on them. They have no control over how
or when those toxins arrive in the north because they come
through the winds and evaporation.
We have a bill where the minister is going to limit her own
powers to protect the environment. The minister's power will in
fact be dissipated to the Minister of Industry. Maybe the
Minister of Finance is not going to like how the minister wants
to protect our environment. That minister will no longer have
the ability to make a decision and say “No we cannot do this.
This is unacceptable. The cost to human health is far to high”.
That is exactly what the bill does. It dissipates the power,
the focus and the concentration on protecting our environment in
the best interests of our public. The best interests of the
health of these citizens have become subordinate to corporate
interests.
I have heard this over and over again today from some of the
members who have spoken and, I think, at great personal cost. It
certainly must be heartbreaking to stand up and not vote with
their party on a bill that they have worked on for years in the
belief that as citizens they could protect our environment.
I will jump back to the north. The bill is not about good
corporate citizens. It is about those individuals and those
corporations who will not and do not clean up after themselves.
They do not look ahead to the cost to the environment and to
health through the process they use in their industry or the
product that they produce in the end.
We have the DEW line, the distant early warning sites across the
north that the U.S. was heavily involved in. It abandoned those
sites leaving behind barrels of DDTs and other toxins. It
sometimes buried them and sometimes left them exposed. What has
happened to the sites? They have not been cleaned up. The
Liberal government made an infamous deal to trade used military
equipment for cleaning up the north, which means of course that
those sites do not and will not get cleaned up.
Corporations have gone through the Faro mine one after the
other. It will cost over $100 million to clean up the toxins
that were left behind. Who is responsible for that and who is
going to end up cleaning it up? The people who live there or the
government of the country will have to clean it up? As it stands,
the mess is there.
We just had a $300,000 fine for a company that left behind a
mess. Guess what? That company is out of business. Who is
going to clean that up? Who is going to live with the
contamination? The indigenous people in that remote area who are
going to have to live with the poison.
The Royal Oak mine in the Northwest Territories has gone out of
business. It will cost over $100 million to clean up the leaking
arsenic in that area. Who is left with that? It is the Canadian
citizens. Obviously with the company out of business it is not
going to be cost effective to clean that up.
There is this whole idea that we will not clean up our
environment or expect business to be responsible for what they
have produced because it might not be cost effective. What is
the definition of cost effective? How many lives will we abandon
to sickness or death on the terms that it would be too costly to
put in any kind of preventative measures on their behalf?
Last year I had the good fortune of listening to David Suzuki
when he was on Parliament Hill. It was very impromptu. Members
of parliament had the chance to listen to him. What he
emphasized, and I suppose has emphasized throughout his career,
is: that we somehow think our economy is independent from the
earth that we live on; that we depend on the ozone layer for
protection; that we depend on our sea for fish; that we depend on
our lakes for fresh water; that we depend on the earth to grow
our wheat; and that somehow we think that as a species we can
live independently of our environment. This is something we
cannot do. In order to have an economy we have to have an
environment and we have to protect it.
This legislation does not protect the environment. It does not
prevent the poisons that are being generated in great numbers by
our society. I would suggest that this is pushed by greed and
not by the concern for a quality of life on this planet that we
truly can sustain for further generations.
I join my colleagues in sadly not supporting the environmental
protection act because it does not do what it said it would do.
It has become a virtual protection act.
1550
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as a former resident of Yukon
for over nine years, I understand completely what the
hon. member for Yukon has just been talking about.
In the aboriginal communities that she deals with on a regular
day to day basis, can she not allay some personal concerns that
they have addressed to her in regard to the Faro mines, the
porcupine caribou herd and other instances of where we have
abandoned those people when it comes to the environmental
protection of the beautiful Yukon?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, at the end of February, I
travelled with the caribou commons project, which is an
environmental lobby to protect the calving grounds of the
porcupine caribou herd. The people in the north depend on this
caribou herd which has calved on a very small coastal plain just
across the border in the United States.
What they have, in effect, is this sense of powerless to protect
their way of life and the sustainability of their economy which
is one that depends on the fish, the berries and the caribou both
spiritually and physically.
If we look at what they could be facing in terms of cost
effectiveness, someone might think that it would be a a heck of a
lot more profitable to have oil fields than to depend on caribou
for a living. Under that logic, it would be perfectly acceptable
to have roads through the habitat of the caribou, through their
calving grounds and through their wintering grounds where North
America has just one range left for the migrating herds. The
north is then completely overlooked.
I would stress again that the effects of toxins are
disproportionately dangerous for the people who live in the north
as compared to the places where they are actually produced.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the concerns I have about the legislation is that Canada
is currently heading up a process to negotiate protocol on
persistent organic pollutants in international protocol. My
concern is that some of the elements that parliament fixes in the
legislation may find its way into that international process.
As someone who has been involved with some of the Inuit
organizations in the north, I have had the opportunity to travel
in the north and to meet with some of these people. I share a
lot of their concerns around contaminants leaking their way into
the north.
What concerns does the member opposite have around persistent
organic pollutants, how do some of the people in her riding deal
with these issues and what would they like to see coming out of
the international process?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, the effects of those
pollutants are really insidious. They are hard to diagnose. When
a person goes to the doctor, the doctor will not be able to say
that the person is suffering from heavy metal poisoning because
of persistent organic pollutants. It just does not happen.
However, I happen to know there are very high rates of cancer,
strange tumours, odd infections, people with chronic fatigue and
environmental sensitivities.
What I think this legislation does is it sets a standard. How
can we expect to go to an international arena and say that we
have to phase out these pollutants when we have set a national
standard that calls for virtual elimination, or that we will
tolerate this much or three-quarters of this level in our
environment rather than looking at them as something deadly which
we cannot accept at all, period? We have to get them out of
production and not allow them to affect our children.
By passing the legislation we set that standard. If we set it
for ourselves, how can we hold an international arena to a higher
standard?
1555
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this will be the last time I get to
speak on behalf of my constituents of Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore on probably the most important piece of
legislation facing us probably in the history of my career as a
politician, being a new one in the House.
When the bill came out of committee it actually had some teeth
to it. However, after the Liberals got a hold of it—with the
exception of the members for Lac-Saint-Louis, Davenport and York
North—they sat back, along with some of their colleagues in the
Reform Party, and said that the bill was too strong and they
could not have this. I find this absolutely disgusting.
It will not happen today or even tomorrow, but eventually down
the road my children are going to ask me why our environment is
more polluted than it was in 1999? I will tell them that it was
because the government of the day, along with the official
opposition, sat back and did absolutely nothing. They caved into
industry standards and industry wishes and wants.
My children will one day ask me what I did to stop them. I will
reply that I tried to do everything in the parliamentary
atmosphere to raise the issue. The member for Churchill River,
the member for Yukon, our leader from Halifax and the entire New
Democratic Party, federally and provincially across the country
from coast to coast to coast, have been raising the issue of the
environment for years.
I can guarantee members a $1,000 Canadian that nobody on the
backbench, with the exception of a few of them, ever read Rachel
Carson's Silent Spring, the environmental handbook. This
was a woman with all the courage in the world who stood up to big
polluters and big corporations in the early 1960s, when it was
not popular to be green, and told the world what was happening to
our natural environment.
Allow me to talk about a few things the government has been
doing. We have had three consecutive environment committee
reports critical of inaction and non-protection. This is a
government that leaves sick children in their homes for over a
year beside the Sydney tar ponds and Sysco site until the toxic
goo shows up in their basements. The Liberals say they are
moving these people, not because of health reasons but for
compassionate reasons. It is absolutely unbelievable.
The Liberals do not have the courage to stand up and accept
responsibility for major catastrophic failures when it comes to
the environment. This is a government that chooses to leave over
one million tonnes of radioactive waste leaking into Great Bear
Lake in the Northwest Territories. This is a government that
says it takes protecting Canada's freshwater resources seriously.
Unbelievable.
Great Bear Lake is Canada's fourth largest supplier of
freshwater. Rather than act, the government pays lip service to
the community and promises and re-promises action. Still nothing
has been done to contain or remedy the problem. The waste is
on a federal government abandoned site.
This is a government that last night voted, with the exception
of three Liberal members, against evidence presented by its own
scientists that hormone disrupting substances have been found
leaving pig farms and entering into waterways. No action was
taken. The Liberals voted against this information. Whatever
the Liberals do they do not want to upset the polluter. My God,
we would certainly not want to upset the polluters who have
destroyed our environment.
What happened to protecting Canadians? Why not place a warning
that this is an occurring and recurring action? Why can we not
tell Canadians the truth about what we are doing to our
environment?
The NDP proposed a series of motions to follow the effort of the
United States to provide a safer environment for their children.
All we asked was to include consideration of the special
susceptibility of children faced with environmental contaminants
as a reference point when investigating substances.
If the members of the Liberal government or the Reform Party had
a green bone in their body or morals beyond the lobby pockets,
they could have acted proactively. The choice to defeat this
proactive precautionary measure was made on the same day an
article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen dealing with the
growing concern of pesticide risk.
To quote Julia Langer, toxicologist for World Wildlife Fund
Canada:
—the regulatory process is deeply flawed. Pesticides are based
on the average adult male's exposure and sensitivity to a
product, a system that overlooks the vulnerability of children
and women, and does not take into account a person's total
exposure.
Our motion would have been to consider children when spending
the millions of dollars on research, with specific considerations
proposed in the United States and other countries. The Liberal
government says it will spend millions of dollars on research.
What will the government do with the information when it gets it?
The previous statement I gave mirrors the executive order signed
by President William Jefferson Clinton in 1997, to direct
government agencies to consider children's vulnerability and
susceptibility in policy and regulatory considerations in 1997.
For the environment minister to stand before Canadians in the
House, or on television, and state that Bill C-32 is the best
environmental legislation in the world is a statement that needs
to be clarified.
It is really the best polluter protection legislation in the world.
1600
On April 21, 1997 the President of the United States ordered by
the authority vested in him as president by the constitution and
the laws of the United States of America that a growing body of
scientific knowledge demonstrated that children might suffer
disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety
risks. He said that these risks arose because children's
neurological, immunological, digestive and other bodily systems
were still developing; that children eat more food, drink more
fluids and breathe more air in proportion to their body weight
than adults; that children's size and weight might diminish their
protection from standard safety features; and that children's
behavioural patterns may make them more susceptible to accidents
because they are less able to protect themselves.
Therefore, he said, that to the extent permitted by law and
appropriate and consistent with the agency's mission, each
federal agency should make it a high priority to identify and
assess environmental health risks and safety risks that might
disproportionately affect children and should ensure that its
policies, programs, activities and standards addressed
disproportionate risks to children which result from
environmental a health risk or safety risk.
I received a postcard today from a friend of mine, Mr. Derek
Jones of Newellton, Nova Scotia. His big concern is the effects
of dragging and the technological gear that we use when it comes
to fishing.
Off the east coast of Nova Scotia in Shelburne are some of the
most beautiful coral reefs in the world. Some of those reefs are
called the bubble gum coral, the bushy acanella and the black tip
coral. They take hundreds of years to grow. In a few minutes a
dragger will come buy and sweep these things away. There is
absolutely nothing in the bill to protect those species with
which we share the planet.
I plead with the government one last time. I have two young
daughters, Jasmin Aurora who is 11 and Amber Ocean who is 8. My
wife and I named those two children after the environment: Aurora
for aurora borealis, the northern lights, and Amber Ocean because
of the colour when the sunset goes down on the water. It turns
it into an amber colour and we call her Amber Ocean. We believe
firmly, strongly and lovingly in our environment, that the
environment protects us. The environment is us. It is
everything that we do.
For parliamentarians and legislators to fail in the protection
of our children and other species with which we share the planet
is an absolute disgrace. I ask every member of the House to vote
with theirs hearts, with foresight and with conviction, not to
vote with what the cabinet said or what some industry person
said.
They should do the right thing for once in their lives and vote
against the bill, send it back to the committee, allow the
committee to revamp it the way it was when it came out of
committee, and not allow any more amendments to the bill from the
government side. All they did was water it down and weakened it.
Instead of protecting our environment, in essence it protects the
industry and the polluters of the country. It is an absolute
disgrace.
The member for Churchill River and his assistant, Mr. Dave
Campbell, have spent a tremendous amount of time working on this
bill and its amendments. They have worked with various
environmental groups, other agencies and industry to come up with
solutions or a long term fix to our problems. Mr. Campbell
worked tirelessly on this portfolio day after day, month after
month. There is probably no one in the country who has worked
harder on it than Mr. Campbell.
The hon. member for Churchill River knows exactly what I am
talking about because Mr. Campbell works for him. They have
formed a great team. On behalf of the New Democratic Party from
coast to coast to coast I wish to publicly thank the member for
Churchill River, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for
York North, the member for Davenport, and the other members who
assisted in getting the bill out of committee as it was.
Unfortunately the government got its hands on the bill
afterward. It changed it and made it much weaker. The bill does
nothing to protect the livelihood of aboriginal people, children,
farmers, fishermen, and other people who use our resources on a
day to day basis. That is most unfortunate.
If we do not learn from history, we will reap what we sow and we
will rue the day we made this decision. Again I ask the Liberals
to have a free vote, vote with their consciences, do what is
right and think of their children. In the words of my aboriginal
friends from the Mi'kmaq nation of Nova Scotia, let us think in
seven generation principles, think of our great,
great-grandchildren before we vote today.
1605
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore
speaks very earnestly about the environment. We all care about
the environment. I for one am concerned about air quality in
Toronto where I live. I also know the member opposite is a very
practical person because I have had the pleasure of participating
with him in extracurricular activities outside the House.
I have a hypothetical question for him. Let us say that the
hon. member is chairman of a company. His chief executive
officer or president makes a presentation to the board of
directors on a project which, after all the analyses, will cost
$600 million and involve 1,000 jobs.
As chairman he would go over all the analyses and ask about the
toxic chemicals being produced, whether they are satisfied with
the level of toxicity and whether they have done all they can to
ensure a clean environment in the factory site. Then the
president would answer that they are down to .0001, that they
have the best available processes in place, and that they are
following all the rules.
What if someone came up with a new measuring device which found
something in there that was .000005? Could they shut them down?
Could they stop them from operating? Could they force them to
find the solution when the solution may not be there? How would
the member feel if he could not be given that assurance? What
would you say then?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind all members
to address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member
that if I were chairman of the board of a major industrial
company the first objective of my company would be environmental
protection at all cost.
Then, working in concert with the municipal, provincial and
federal governments, I would ascertain the most environmentally
friendly sustainable way not only of maintaining the environment
in a sustainable manner but working with labour groups and all
other groups to make sure we do not harm the environment in any
way, shape or form. That is the seven generation principle, and
that is what we should be doing.
He should know that instead of eradicating pollutants the bill
will allow the government to set the level of pollutants. It
gives extraordinary powers to the environment minister, he or
she. We know this one may not be around long after the next
shuffle. The government may set a level which does not meet any
scientific or biological long term evidence to protect our
planet.
If I were chairman of the board I would be working in concert
with all stakeholders to protect our environment, jobs and the
sustainable environment at all cost.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly heard a lot
of rhetoric from the member opposite. That is a very gentle way
to describe it.
Is he aware that the bill explicitly recognizes the right of
aboriginal governments to participate directly in advising the
minister on the operation and implementation of the act? Does he
recognize that this bill, unlike any other bill or anything we
do, obligates the minister to conduct science on emerging issues
like gender benders or endocrine disrupters?
Is he aware that the government provided money toward
remediation for the community action group in Sydney to clean up
the tar ponds, almost $40 million after lots of investment in
terms of science?
The bill is predicated on the principle of pollution prevention
so we never have to get into these circumstances. How could the
member opposite say that he would vote against implementing and
operationalizing pollution prevention? How could he stand here
today and say he will do that?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has a way of leading
a question with her chin. Why did she override the amendments of
the members for Lac-Saint-Louis, Davenport and York North which
would have made the bill stronger? Why did you do that? Did you
do it because of what you cared for or did—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Don't forget me.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, why did she override
those three valuable members of the committee?
1610
The aboriginal group is strictly an advisory group. The
minister can still chose to ignore its advice. Also the bill
completely ignores the Metis people.
The federal and provincial governments spent $62 million to help
the affected people out of Frederick Street, but there is no long
term commitment and no resources to clean up the tar ponds and
all that area, once and for all. None whatsoever.
The bill out of the committee has been weakened and the
parliamentary secretary knows it. She cannot deny that because
it is a fact.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to say a few words about Bill C-32,
the legislation to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act or CEPA as it is commonly known.
I will focus my remarks on the critical issue of enforcement of
the law. Effective enforcement of our environmental laws is
something that Canadians have a right to expect. It has been a
matter of interest to many members of the House and of the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development.
Bill C-32 represents a significant step forward because of the
new enforcement tools it will provide. This will translate into
improved enforcement and better protection of our environment and
our health. CEPA is the cornerstone of federal environmental
protection legislation. It allows the government to set tough
but fair standards for the benefit of all Canadians to protect
our environment and our health.
Through its regulations CEPA sets rules that must be obeyed. The
enforcement provisions of Bill C-32 will provide the powers to
ensure these rules are indeed obeyed. It provides authority to
conduct inspections that are the backbone of our enforcement
efforts.
Inspections serve several functions. First, they help to create
an enforcement presence, evidence of the government's commitment
to ensuring compliance by regulatees. Second, they can identify
specific environmental problems. Third, they serve to identify
non-compliance for further investigation.
Bill C-32 expands investigative powers in CEPA to make sure that
our enforcement officers can enter and inspect any place where
there might logically be substances or activities regulated under
CEPA. Enforcement officers will now be able to seek inspection
warrants from the courts when they are refused entry at a
commercial site or when they arrive and find that the premises
are locked or abandoned.
Another significant improvement in the bill is the changes that
will provide peace officer status to CEPA enforcement officers.
These new powers will greatly improve their ability to detect
environmental crimes. It means, among other things, that CEPA
enforcement officers will be able to seek warrants to conduct
video surveillance or intercept private communications.
Other peace officer powers, such as the authority to serve court
summonses, issue notices to appear in court and seek search
warrants by telephone, will allow enforcement officers to do
their job more quickly and efficiently, especially when they are
ensuring compliance in remote areas.
Bill C-32 not only introduces innovations during the inspection
and investigation phase. It also introduces changes for dealing
with situations where CEPA has been violated. Once there has
been a violation of an environmental protection law, our goal is
to return the violator to compliance as quickly as possible,
without further recurrence of the violation.
Traditionally we have relied on criminal courts to order
violators into compliance once they have been convicted of an
offence. Current thinking has led governments in Canada and
elsewhere to supplement this process with other statutory tools
designed to ensure compliance without burdening the courts with
lengthy trials.
Two of the most important additions to CEPA in this area are
environmental protection compliance orders and environmental
protection alternative measures. Environmental protection
compliance orders work like injunctions. They allow an
enforcement officer to order a person to stop violating the law
or to follow the requirements of the law where the enforcement
officer has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a
violation.
In keeping with the principles of justice, there are limitations
to the use of this power by an inspector. The steps laid out in
the order must be reasonable. They must be consistent with
protection of the environment and public safety.
1615
The maximum period that a compliance order can be in effect is
180 days. Nevertheless, environmental protection compliance
orders are very powerful tools. To ensure that they are used
fairly, a person who is the subject of an order can appeal the
order by asking for a review of that order by an independent
review officer.
The other major new type of enforcement tool is the
environmental protection alternative measures, or EPAMs.
Alternative measures are not new in Canadian law. They already
are present in the Criminal Code as well as the Young Offenders
Act.
Environmental protection alternative measures are essentially
negotiated settlements to criminal charges. They are negotiated
between the accused and the Attorney General of Canada. Bill C-32
sets out strict conditions surrounding the negotiation of such
alternative measures including that the measures can only be
negotiated after charges are laid in the court. The accused
therefore knows that the government has thoroughly investigated
the violation and has evidence to support these charges.
Negotiation of EPAMs is voluntary, both for the attorney general
and the accused. The attorney general can choose not to offer
negotiated EPAMs after taking into account the seriousness of the
violation, damage to the environment and efforts made to correct
the damage, the compliance history of the accused with CEPA and
so on.
As well the accused must freely consent to negotiate an EPAM
after being advised of their right to be represented by legal
counsel. They must also accept the responsibility for their
offence.
EPAMs are not backroom deals. They are negotiated after the
charges are made public and the agreements themselves are filed
in the court and they too are public documents. If the accused
does not live up to the terms of the EPAM, the original charges
can be reactivated. On the other hand, if the terms of the EPAM
are fulfilled and the accused is again in compliance with the
law, the charges can be suspended or withdrawn entirely. There is
no recorded conviction; there is no criminal record and there is
compliance.
Bill C-32 also provides new guidance for the courts when
sentencing convicted offenders. The bill includes sentencing
criteria that take into account such things as the cost to remedy
the damage done to the environment. The maximum under CEPA
continues to be a fine of $1 million a day or up to five years
imprisonment. A court can also levy a fine equal to any profits
earned as a result of the offence.
Bill C-32 takes an innovative and progressive approach toward
enforcement. It greatly extends the powers of enforcement
officers so they can ensure compliance with the law. Overall,
Bill C-32 strengthens CEPA so that we will be able to better
protect both the environment and the health of Canadians.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her fine speech. I have a
number of questions for her.
Much of this comes from the work by the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development who excoriated the
government in many ways on its failure to co-ordinate
interdepartmental activities on the issue of sustainable
environmental management and on the issue of developing a common
policy and a hearing for those policies. The indictment was quite
scathing. It went all the way from a lack of interdepartmental
co-ordination to a lack of agreement. In fact the commissioner
said that the single greatest impediment to fulfilling and living
up to our agreements within our country is interdepartmental
warring, a lack of co-ordination between departments on a
horizontal level and within a department on a vertical level.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague what does her government
plan on doing to rectify this very important problem that we have
within the government today?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, the position the member
refers to was actually established by the government. Many of the
recommendations have been implemented in this bill. It is
something that the government will continue to take seriously as
it moves toward protecting the environment.
1620
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in the vote last night, one of the amendments took away the
statement of phasing out toxic substances in the preamble. The
issue of phase-out was a major commitment made by the Liberals in
the election campaign. In the fading red book the only thing
that stood out was this environmental promise. Since this promise
has been broken and only three of the Liberals stood up to oppose
CEPA, maybe the member could comment on why the phase-out of the
deadliest toxins in the world is not in effect in this country.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I would just underscore
the hon. member's comment that it was in the preamble and not
actually part of the bill. The bill says we will virtually
eliminate all detectable levels of the specific toxins. That is
virtual elimination. I would go back to my comments about the
strict enforcement of the CEPA bill itself and the fact that it
will lead to better environment control and better protection for
Canadians.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the member for Kitchener Centre for
her interest in and commitment to this particular topic.
In her remarks the member talked about the issue of enforcement
and implementation. There are roles here for the federal
government obviously in the context of federal statutes and laws,
but also for the provincial governments and the ministers of
environment, particularly in Ontario. We have heard a lot of
discussion and debate about the lack of commitment by the Ontario
government in its cutbacks to the environment. With respect, we
have had to do some cutting back in our own federal Department of
the Environment.
I wonder if the member could comment on how well we are
positioned in Ontario and in Canada to enforce the laws and
regulations that we do promulgate.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his question and acknowledge that when we have a joint
responsibility such as enforcement, this is something on which we
will move with the provinces. We have to have their buy in to it
as well.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has over 64,000 buildings, over 25,000
vehicles and disposes of over 90,000 tonnes of waste every single
year. It was also stated that the government could save over
$300 million over 30 years if it was able to adhere to the
principles of sustainable environmental consumption that it
agreed to but is not fulfilling.
How is the hon. member's government going to ensure that the
federal government and the ministries themselves adhere to sound
environmental principles and save $300 million and a lot of
waste?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that
CEPA actually is an attempt by the government to put its house in
order as well as to bring into alignment the environmental issues
it deals with.
I thank the hon. member for his concern. I wish he and his
party would bring these concerns to question period and ask the
minister herself these very important questions.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand
today to talk about Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution
prevention and the protection of the environment and human health
in order to contribute to sustainable development.
Before I begin my formal comments I would like to thank the very
many officials who have dedicated their energy, time and
enthusiasm to this process. Without them we would not be here
today voting on this bill. The minister and her staff and my own
staff have made sure that this process has gone smoothly and that
we have the best bill possible to vote on tonight.
During the last 11 months Bill C-32 has been debated by all
sides in the House. After thoughtful consideration and often
lively debate both in committee and in this chamber, Bill C-32 I
believe gives Canadians environmental legislation that protects
the health of Canadians today and for the future.
Some seven federal departments are touched by this bill:
environment, health, agriculture and agri-food, fisheries and
oceans, natural resources, industry, and intergovernmental
affairs.
1625
Canadians need and deserve legislation that deals with the
challenges of today and prepares for the challenges of the
future.
In the clause by clause process we spent some 93 hours, a
Canadian record, examining the clauses of this bill. We
considered some 560 different amendments, some of which
overlapped and 157 of which were passed. The government proposed
90 amendments. It supported 60 amendments from members on all
sides. As the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies said “Let
us look at this bill and see how it is an improvement on the
current legislation and something that all of us as Canadians can
build upon”.
Bill C-32 is founded on the concept that preventing pollution is
better both for the environment and for the economy than trying
to clean up after the damage has been done.
CEPA, the current legislation that is enacted in Canada, came
into place in 1988. Our thinking about the environment has
evolved since then. Science and technology have evolved since
then. Environmental law has advanced. Concepts like sustainable
development and pollution prevention have become widely accepted.
The environmental challenges are increasing rather than
decreasing.
Bill C-32 is a significant and positive step in renewing the
current legislation. It is on the leading edge of environmental
protection legislation worldwide.
Contrary to their dire predictions and doomsday scenarios, at
the end of the day this bill will ensure that industries in
Canada will be more competitive and their employees will live in
a healthier environment. After years of debate, a clear
framework will exist once this bill is passed. Canadian
businesses will meet the challenges. There are environmental
businesses in my riding that depend on strong regulatory
frameworks. That is what this bill will ensure.
The bill establishes a clear framework for managing toxic
substances. It operationalizes pollution prevention, especially
after amendments were requested by the environmental lobbyists
who appeared before the committee. It ensures cleaner air and
water. It deals with fuels, engine emissions, sources of
international air and water pollution. It establishes a clear
regime for environmental matters related to emergencies. It
deals with emerging biotechnology issues guarding against the
adverse effects of biotechnology. It deals with federal
government lands and operations and aboriginal lands. It
introduces strict enforcement regimes and new peace officer
status and powers for stricter enforcement. It encourages public
participation. There is a new environmental register that is
fully accessible on the Internet. These are good things. It
will lead to good change in our country.
One of the most important things is getting the worst toxic
substances out of our environment. This bill establishes a more
efficient process to identify, screen, assess and manage toxic
substances. It virtually eliminates the most dangerous of those
toxic substances. It puts in a fixed timeframe to put in place
controls and obligates the Minister of the Environment and this
government to do research on emerging issues like gender bending
or hormone disrupting substances.
Might I remind all members that we have encouraged and left in
place the amendments the committee brought forward, contrary to
what members of the House are saying. That the amendments last
night somehow brought the bill back to before the committee
process I say is hogwash. This bill is a good bill. It was
improved in the process and we have maintained that.
The new authority will improve control of pollutants and waste.
It will monitor motor vehicles and other engine emissions to
develop a new national emissions mark for engines meeting
emission requirements. It will provide a national fuels mark to
show that fuels meet environmental standards. It will provide
better protection of the marine environment from land based
sources of pollution and will increase the power to control the
transboundary movement of hazardous waste and hazardous
recyclables. It will provide the power to control the import and
export of non-hazardous waste and the authority to require
reduction plans from exporters.
There is an increased role for aboriginal peoples. It improves
the opportunities for public involvement. There is comprehensive
whistleblower protection provisions that will encourage more
Canadians to report CEPA violations.
I would now like to talk a bit about virtual elimination.
Virtual elimination means reducing releases to the environment of
a small number of the most dangerous toxic substances to levels
where these releases cannot be measured. It relates to the most
toxic substances. It is a leading edge process and it puts in
place Canada's toxic substances management policy.
1630
Extremely small releases of certain substances to the
environment create problems that are extremely costly or
impossible to correct. It is particularly true for substances
that are toxic as defined under CEPA and are primarily the result
of human activity. They are persistent, meaning that they take a
long time if ever to break down and they bioaccumulate. They
collect in living organisms and end up in the food chain.
Let us talk about DDT, an insecticide introduced in the 1940s
into Canada. It was responsible for causing drastic reductions
in many bird populations, especially those in the higher levels
of the food chain. We banned DDT in 1970 in Canada and still it
is being detected in the breast milk of people in our northern
regions. It is still causing havoc for the birds and the bald
eagles which like to nest in the Great Lakes area.
We cannot always accurately predict at precisely what level
these very dangerous substances pose a significant risk, but we
have put in place the precautionary principle. We base the
decisions on science but we do not require full scientific
certainly. That is what the legislation ensures.
The virtual elimination provisions of Bill C-32 are entirely
consistent with the government's toxic substances management
policy in 1995.
Let us talk about gender benders or hormone disrupting
substances. Some chemicals disrupt the hormones in our bodies.
Some of them have a long term effect and some of them have a
short term effect. Beer would have a short term effect. Other
things might have a longer term effect.
We are doing research. We are making sure our researchers are
doing the best job. They are part of international panels. They
are doing the research in my riding of Burlington. They will
better understand this emerging threat and other threats that we
do not even know about. They will evaluate toxics against this
new emerging information. They will protect the health of
Canadians and the environment.
Unlike the existing CEPA, Bill C-32 places strict deadlines on
the government to act to protect the environment and human
health. The bill is consistent with the government's commitment
to sustainable development when making decisions. The new CEPA
requires consideration of environment and health effects. Unlike
the existing laws, CEPA provides several opportunities for
consultation and to develop more effective measures to protect
the environment.
When members stand in the House tonight, they can stand and vote
for the bill with confidence because it gives the government new
tools and powers. The bill is about pollution prevention. The
bill has public input and as a final bill it protects human
health. It focuses on pollution prevention and it introduces and
ensures a strict toxic management regime.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is very uplifting to hear from a member of the Liberal
government. They love to spout fine rhetoric such as “This is
groundbreaking legislation. This bill includes the most
effective processes. It is the best environmental legislation in
the world”.
Yesterday, when we voted at report stage, the most involved
members of the Liberal caucus, who sit on the Standing Committee
on the Environment and Sustainable Development, including the
chairman himself, the hon. member for Davenport, who was
Minister of the Environment in the Turner cabinet, voted against
the bill.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, a former Quebec environment
minister under Robert Bourassa in the 1970s, voted against the
bill. He also sits on the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development.
The hon. member for York North, in Ontario, who is an
environmentalist and a member of the same committee, voted
against the bill.
The parliamentary secretary does not have the courage to admit
that this bill was killed by the Minister of Industry himself
and the various ministers who gravitate around him.
1635
Everything is a power struggle in that party. The bill, which
was originally acceptable, has been watered down to the point
where it does not even have 1% of true quality left.
This is why Bloc Quebecois members and many others will vote
against it. The squandering of public money and duplication that
will result from this legislation are the reasons why my
colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, recommended that we
vote against Bill C-32.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting
preamble and an interesting question. I think somewhere I was
called unthoughtful but I am not sure. I will try to ignore that
part.
Clearly this is yet again the Bloc's interpretation of federal
and provincial responsibilities. The bill is not about
duplication. The bill acknowledges that the federal and
provincial governments have some responsibilities. In some cases
they overlap. We are working to have a seamless across the
country of laws which will create, ensure and improve the
environment and the human health of Canadians. I urge the hon.
member to support it.
The supreme court said that the protection of the environment
was an international problem that required action by governments
at all levels. The legitimate use of the criminal law in—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. There
are over 23,000 substances in the country today. Many were found
acceptable prior to the 1960s when our ability to analyse their
effects on human health were less than they are today. What does
the parliamentary secretary feel about that?
The departments have made commitments to engage in sustainable
environmental actions but only 11% of those actions are being
fulfilled. What will the government do to ensure that
governments live up to the commitments they said they would live
up to?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 places some
strict timelines on the evaluation of the 23,000 substances in
existence in Canada. It ensures they are evaluated against the
potential health and environment risks.
With regard to general government policy, the member should know
that the last two budgets included some $40 million for this
evaluation. We recently announced a project the other day. I am
glad the member will be heralding that in news releases in his
riding. It ensures the government is doing research on some of
these very important substances. Health Canada, Environment
Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are involved because we
all know this environment is the only environment we have. We
must protect the environment and the human health of Canadians.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
would like the parliamentary secretary acknowledge that the bill
requires additional responsibilities of the minister and of the
environment department? Are there additional resources for
enforcement?
An additional listing of money was included in the last budget,
but the standing committee was asking for enforcement. The
standing committee has been tossed around by the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member but his time is up.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, one of the many good
things that could be said about the government is that when a
need has been identified we have made the resources available.
The committee recommended enhanced powers. They are in the
bill, so I urge him to stand tonight and vote for stricter
enforcement, for giving peace officer status to enforcement
officers to make sure they can continue to protect the
environment for all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore,
fisheries; the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough,
Correctional Service Canada; the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington, the environment; the hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale, trade; the hon. member for Churchill River,
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
1640
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-32. After what I
have heard today I must say the government is falling far short
of the commitments it has made. I bring to the attention of the
House numerous studies on the abysmal activities of the
government on the environment.
Unfortunately I only have 10 minutes so I will get to the heart
of the matter. The Department of the Environment has been an
utter failure in the enforcement, monitoring and control of the
environmental policies it has enacted. I will divide the
environment into two sections: domestic and international.
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
put forth a very concise and specific report with specific
solutions on how to revamp and improve the environment within our
country and our activities abroad. After all, as we know, the
environment is transboundary. It affects not only ourselves but
other countries in the world.
In the first part, managing toxic substances, over 23,000
substances have been approved. Many of them were approved before
1960, which means we really do not know the effects of these
substances on human health. We need to re-examine that.
One of the greatest obstacles toward a sustainable environmental
program is the lack of co-ordination between departments and
within departments. Turf wars, lack of co-ordination, lack of
common vision, lack of agreement and lack of a dispute resolution
mechanism on agreements have ensured that the agreements reached
are unenforceable, are not being listened to, and are simply in
many cases not worth the paper they are written on.
That is an issue of public service, public management and the
failure of management in many of the ministries today. There is
the lack of monitoring and the unfulfilled commitments.
Commitments are made but not adhered to.
How can we have a sustainable environmental policy when the
government's own departments are simply not listening to what
they have been told to adhere to? Furthermore, no one is
monitoring them and no one is saying that if two departments are
not agreeing on something an independent dispute mechanism will
be put in place to ensure that they do. If that were to happen
it would go a long way to fulfilling the commitments we have made
on the environment.
There is no common vision and there is a lack of consensus among
departments. The commissioner said that the single greatest
impediment to a sustainable environmental policy was the lack of
departmental co-ordination which exists today.
On the issue of federal-provincial agreements there is no
ongoing analysis of whether the federal and provincial
governments are actually fulfilling the commitments they have
made. No one is watching them. There are no dispute resolution
mechanisms among provinces or between the federal government and
the provinces.
Commitments are made and no concrete action is taken. Only 11%
of the commitments made by departments have been fulfilled. Some
89% have not been fulfilled. There is a lack of co-ordination
among departments and inadequate review is endemic.
We need to turn talk into action. The federal government has
64,000 buildings, 25,000 vehicles, and disposes of 95,000 tonnes
of waste every year. The commissioner said that if the
government were to adhere to the principles that have been put
forth it would save taxpayers some $300 million over the next 30
years, not to mention making our streets, our air and our land a
lot safer for everyone.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We can look at what is
happening in other countries. In the Netherlands and Denmark the
agricultural sector has done an outstanding job of putting
together concise environmental plans. The World Bank is starting
to do it. South Africa has done an outstanding job with respect
to its endangered species legislation and in terms of garnering,
improving and expanding habitat.
1645
With the consent of the House I will be sharing my time with
the member for Elk Island.
Internationally we have to look at what will happen in the
future. There is an increasing population growth rate. Currently
our world population is 6 billion people. In the middle of the
next century the world population will hit 11 billion. How will
we make sure that we have an environment that is liveable with a
population of 11 billion? People will strive for an improved
standard of living.
The largest democracy in the world, India, has an incredibly
expanding middle class that will number over 300 million people
in the next century. Approximately 300 million people, 10 times
the population of Canada, will be demanding the same standard of
living as we have. That will put an extraordinary demand upon
not only renewable, but also non-renewable resources. If we do
not institute sustainable environmental policies and adhere to
those policies we will have a degraded environment in which it
will simply not be worth living.
Some, such as Tad Homer Dixon from the University of Toronto
Institute of Conflict Studies, have claimed that the diminishing
of non-renewable resources will result in conflict. We can see as
an example the water situation in the Middle East and how this is
an issue on which wars may be fought. It is something that we
need to look at and, indeed, the countries in the area need to
look at very carefully.
On the issue of endangered species the government's behaviour is
abysmal. This issue affects not only the federal government, but
also the provinces. Because of the balkanization of our country,
how things have been divided between the federal government and
the provinces, there is an enormous amount of overlap between
those two levels of government, as well as the municipalities,
and endangered species are not being protected.
The federal government's great tome to endangered species is to
protect less than 5% of the land in this country. That is
nothing. Species rely upon land to survive. The degradation of
land, damage to the environment and the shrinkage of their
habitat are the greatest threats to these species.
I know there are members across the way who feel very
passionately about this. The federal government clearly needs to
work with the provinces in developing a strategy that will
involve a much larger area of land over which the federal
government or the provinces, one or the other, will have distinct
control so that laws can be applied, people will adhere to them
and the laws will be enforced.
There are two topics I would like to broach. One is
co-ordination between government and the private sector. Not
enough has been done about that. Again I bring up the subject of
South Africa. The people of the province of KwaZulu/Natal have
done an outstanding job of marrying the needs of the private
sector and the public sector. Co-operation between the private
and the public sectors has led to a huge increase in habitat and
has greatly improved the safety of the flora and fauna. It is
the last repository for large mammals in that area of the world.
If it was not for what has been done in that province, many of
these mammals would have been extinct a long time ago, as well as
much of the flora.
I ask the government to look at the innovative ways in which
South Africa has engaged in public-private partnerships and
conservancies and how the parks and habitat have been used to
benefit the people in the surrounding area. This has done a
great deal for the sustainable environment program, which has
benefited people as well as the flora and fauna and the
environment.
The government needs to turn talk into action. It needs to
implement the strategies. It needs to monitor the strategies. It
needs to establish clear targets. It needs to develop
interdepartmental co-ordination, not the hodge-podge situation we
have now, with the infighting which is making the environmental
policy of the government a pox on its house.
1650
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the member's speech and particularly
to the part where he talked about a project in South Africa,
which I think is an excellent example of public and private
partnership.
Yesterday evening I had a chance to attend the state dinner
hosted by the Prime Minister for the President of Colombia. I
happened to be sitting beside a gentlemen and his wife who live
in Bogota and own a small coffee plantation. These individuals
are from a well established family. The gentleman was telling me
that the U.S. based Smithsonian Institution is prepared to
certify plantations such as his because he is willing to invest
money in his plantation to assist with the migratory bird
problem, a problem resulting unfortunately from deforestation in
the tropical areas of South America.
In line with the member's comments, I thought it was an
excellent example of economy and ecology working together to
provide a better situation, not only for our animal life but for
human beings as well.
The certification of his plantation by the Smithsonian
Institution will allow this individual to sell coffee at a higher
price because it will be certified by the institution. Resources
will then be available for this man to invest in his plantation
to improve the trees and the husbandry of the plants for the
benefit of the migratory birds who need that type of forest
cover.
I am wondering if the member could comment further on that type
of partnership. Does the member believe that Bill C-32 will not
allow that kind of thing? I believe it will.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, in my view Bill C-32
misses the mark completely. Sustainable environmental management
are pretty words but they lack substance. What the World
Wildlife Fund did in Belize, Central America, and what was done
in KwaZulu/Natal are models of sustainable environmental
management. Unfortunately we have not adopted this in our
country. We have not embraced the concept, nor have we, in my
view, engaged companies in the private sector to make them
understand the benefits on their bottom line of having stable
socioeconomic conditions and a stable environment. If that
stabilization takes place, it will translate into more money on
their bottom line.
I would be happy to speak to the member at length, but I draw
his attention to those examples because they have saved dozens of
species of flora and fauna and indeed have improved the health
and welfare of the people, which has resulted in greater profits
for the companies working in those areas.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member of the Reform Party for having shared with us
his view on what environmental legislation properly administered
by a department that assumes its responsibilities for
co-ordination and takes steps to protect endangered species and
eliminate toxic substances ought to be like.
Reform members have indicated that such objectives could never
be met by the bill and by the environment department. I would
like the hon. Reform member to tell my why he and his party
would vote for Bill C-32 when it is the total opposite of what he
is calling for.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question.
[English]
We are supporting this bill because something is better than
nothing. We are putting forth constructive leadership solutions
that the government can take if it chooses, which exist not only
within our country, within our own departments, but also
internationally. These measures could dramatically improve the
environmental programs which I hope the government would like to
pursue.
1655
There is so much more that we could do on the environment that
we are not doing. Again, pragmatic solutions exist. They are
found in South Africa, Central America, Europe, Denmark and the
Netherlands.
The World Bank is starting to institute some fine programs.
Indeed, the World Bank is engaging in a very innovative program
of marrying the private sector with the public sector. It has
taken as an example what UNICEF has done in Botswana, which has
taken a leadership role on this issue. I encourage the
government to look at what Dr. Steve Simon, the UNICEF
representative in Botswana, has done on this issue. It has been
really innovative.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
delight to be able to rise to speak to a matter which is of the
greatest importance to all of us.
I am sure that every member here, especially all those myriads
of Liberals on the other side, represented mostly by their green
suits today, would definitely agree that we want to protect the
environment. We want to protect the people of our country from
being poisoned. That really is what environmental protection is
about. I do not think there is anybody in the House who would
disagree with that basic fundamental principle.
If I may be so bold, Mr. Speaker, I would like to open my
favourite magazine to the centrefold. It happens to be the blue
book of the Reform Party. Right in the centre is our policy on
pollution and the environment. I would encourage people to get a
copy of this book.
I am holding it so the camera does not pick it up. It is not
being used as a prop. It is not even as bad as a flag.
I would encourage people to pick this up because there is much
misinformation about Reform's commitment to the preservation of
the environment. The reason is that some people keep
perpetrating the myth of what they think they would like to
criticize us for, instead of looking at the facts. The facts
are, what are the policies and principles—
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but he has
made reference to the Reform Party's blue book. I wonder when he
is finished using it for his speech if he would be so kind as to
table it so that all hon. members could—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order, but I am sure the hon. member for Elk Island will find
it very hard not to comply with the invitation.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to table 301
copies with the clerk. We do not need 301 because 59 of us
already have them. Certainly they are available. They are in
the public domain.
Some may want to have it quicker than that. Maybe there is
somebody right now in the wonderful provinces of Alberta or
Saskatchewan listening to this speech, saying “I sure wonder
what the Reformers say about the environment”. Get on the old
Internet and go to www.reform.ca and there it is. Our blue book
is right on our web page and anybody in the country can look.
I want to point out that there are some very important
principles that are given here. I will read a few of them
because I will not have time in my limited time to read the whole
section. It is a wonderful centrefold. It states:
The Reform Party supports the principle of establishing and
regularly reviewing standards that are based on sound science and
which are technologically and socio-economically viable.
That is the only responsible statement that can be made on the
environment. People can become extremists on one side of the
story or on the other, saying on the one side that we do not care
about the environment, or that we will not allow anything on the
other side. There has to be some reasonable middle ground. We
need to balance all of these various factors.
I have been listening all day to the debate and it has been very
interesting, especially because of the different points of view
that have been presented. While I was listening to these
speeches today I wondered what we would really have to do to make
our planet totally pristine again.
1700
We would definitely have to stop using vehicles which pump an
awful lot of pollution into the environment. It is now generally
known that I am now six-tenths of a century old, but in my short
lifetime I have noticed how much we have decreased the amount of
pollution per vehicle.
We had a car when I was just a young man with a family. I will
not mention the make because it is not nice to pick on any
particular make or model. However, it regularly delivered 15
miles per gallon. I did a little calculation. Every time I
drove that vehicle 100 kilometres, although we did not measure
distance in kilometres in those years, I would use 18.8 litres of
fuel with the corresponding amount of pollution that came from
them. This was at a time when we were bringing in non-leaded
fuel.
I have purchased one or two or three cars over the last 34
years. The big car we have now uses exactly half as much fuel.
The old one got 15 miles per gallon; this one gets 30. It is
still a reasonably big car suitable for four or five people. It
uses 9.4 litres every 100 kilometres.
I am going to use the name of my little runabout because it is a
wonderful little car. I will do some advertising for them. My
little Mazda 323 gets about 45 miles per gallon. That is 6.3
litres every 100 kilometres. We are down to approximately
one-third as much pollution for every 100 kilometres driven. That
came about without any government regulation and without any
inspectors. There are hundreds of vehicles like mine that are
now being driven on the streets of our country.
My proudest moment is when I hop on my little Honda 125. It has
a nice little 4 cycle engine. It is totally clean burning. It
is difficult to believe, but I get 100 miles per gallon with it.
That works out to around 3 litres every 100 kilometres. When I
am going somewhere all by myself I use that bike or my slightly
larger bike which is just a little less economical in fuel. I
feel so good when I do that because I am not polluting the
atmosphere.
I feel that it is a personal responsibility to do whatever we
can individually. I agree with legislation like Bill C-32 which
says we should have regulations to prevent those who would
blatantly break the law. There are some. I have met them myself
as have all other members, I am sure.
I have heard speeches today by people whom I have seen just
outside the doors here huffing and puffing on a cigarette. It is
incredible. It is the greatest concentration of air pollution.
Those burning leaves are approximately 20 centimetres from the
nose and mouth. The smoke is being sucked in instead of blown
out. It is absolutely absurd. Yet they are here talking about
pollution, Bill C-32 and regulating the environment. Let us get
real.
I feel very good when I use my little vehicles and I do not
pollute the air. That is a personal responsibility. Just as
with cigarette smoking we ought to improve education in that
regard.
In our school rooms across the country more and more attention
is being paid to educating and informing our young people not
only about the evils of smoking and that form of pollution but
all different kinds of pollution.
It is difficult to believe, looking at me sideways, that I am a
physical fitness nut. My favourite form of transportation is my
bicycle. I used my bicycle to go to work for many years, long
before it was fashionable. There were not even bicycle racks at
the place where I worked when I started using my bicycle to go to
work every day, 6.8 miles each day. It was a wonderful physical
workout. That is why I am in such fine aerodynamic shape today.
It was wonderful to travel along and to realize there was almost
zero pollution when I was using my bicycle, depending on how
close someone was following me.
1705
I remember also when catalytic converters came out. I really do
not know what it is about them but I have had the personal
experience of travelling behind vehicles with them. For part of
my trip I had to go on public roads. I was pumping away and
breathing hard because to get this old motor going uses a lot of
oxygen.
If I got behind one of the old vehicles, even though it felt a
little uncomfortable it did not stop me from breathing. When the
catalytic converters came out they choked me. All the scientists
said it was much better, but I still remember when I was
following a car up the hill from the high level bridge in
Edmonton that if a car passed me with a catalytic converter I had
to drop right back because I could not breathe it in. My body
rejected the pollution coming from that vehicle.
We must do what we can in order to reduce pollution. I
recommend that we go to bicycles, every one of us. This week for
the first time I was surprised to see a fellow member of
parliament on one of the city's buses. It happened to be a
fellow Reformer.
I am amazed. We talk about it but who uses public transit in
order to reduce pollution? Each of us likes to get in individual
cabs or big limousines and drive around. We use these large
vehicles one at a time. Why do we not personally take the
responsibility, as I do whenever possible, to use public
transportation?
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know where things are headed today, but something is up.
The Reform Party member has just said that the only platform
that could be a responsible statement on the environment is to
be found in his party's blue book. It contains all the answers,
if I understood him correctly.
I would therefore like to ask the Reform Party member why he is
going to support Bill C-32. Will he say, like his colleague with
whom he shared his time earlier, that half a loaf is better than
none, and that that is why he supports Bill C-32?
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the short time I had I could
only speak on one topic and I chose to speak about
transportation, one of the larger contributions to pollutants.
There are industrial processes and others that use chemicals.
Bill C-32 begins to address in a realistic way some, not all, of
our concerns with industrial processes.
I need to tell the member and others that in my riding I have
some very important petrochemical industries. If we are to be so
hard on them that they can no longer operate, are we then ready
to stop flying our airplanes, driving cars and having houses
heated with hydrocarbon fuels? Will we put out our fireplaces
and our bonfires? They are also a form of pollution. There is a
limit to how far one can go.
Bill C-32 is a step in the right direction. It does not perhaps
go as far as it ought to in some areas. Again, looking at me
sideways, better half a loaf than none.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member raised the topic of regularly reviewing
environmental regulations based on sound science. The evidence I
have seen in committee over the past year leads me to believe he
is referring to political science. By no means have they
strengthened the CEPA bill as it has been presented.
The closing clause of the respective amendment says that a
review would take place in the other House. The next review of
CEPA may not take place here. By that time the Liberals could
dominate the other place and elected members would not have a say
on what the next CEPA review would be like. Could the hon.
member comment on that?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am a very firm advocate of
sound science as I am a math-physics major and I know just enough
about chemistry to get me into trouble.
The member is absolutely right when he says that about the Reform
Party. We are committed to that.
1710
I would like to refer to a personal view which I do not think is
in our policy. I would like to see an auditor general of the
environment, totally independent of the political world, so that
decisions on the environment are not based on who has the
strongest lobby group.
I talked about my little Mazda. I did not replace the spark
plugs for 75,000 kilometres. Then I put the same ones back in
because they were still good and used them until 100,000
kilometres. Yet I was being told that MMT, which was in the fuel
ever since that vehicle was new, would foul these things up in
20,000 kilometres. That is not sound science. If that were true
it should have happened right away and it did not. I believe in
sound science.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, did the member opposite
get his information or a copy of the bill on the government green
lane at www.ec.gc.ca/cepa?
Was the member opposite at our committee hearing the other day
when the auditor for the environment, the person we put in place,
Mr. Brian Emmett, the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development, made his report? He audited the
government and made recommendations, some of which we have
already followed through on and many of which are in the bill.
Was he thinking about the red book commitment which we fulfilled
when he was talking about that auditor position?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is wishful thinking. I
have not read the pink book. I think it is starting to fade a
little, with some of the records in it going awry. Unfortunately
I have other duties in committee. I am on the finance committee
and I seldom get to the environment committee. It is really
quite a shame.
My understanding of the commissioner is that he is a political
appointment. There is a problem with that because one knows
where one's bread is buttered. I would like to see a totally—
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Shame on the member.
Mr. Ken Epp: Am I wrong? If I am wrong I want to be
corrected. I think that position should be totally
non-political, apolitical, dedicated to accurate and true
science.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know in a couple of minutes we have to break for the
vote. I would like to be on record, as I will later when we
vote, as being in support of Bill C-32. It is a very important
step in the history of improving the relationship between people
and the environment.
There is a famous Chinese proverb which says that a journey of
1,000 miles starts with the first step. This is not a first
step. Previous governments over the years have tried to deal
with the needs of society and the needs of the environment.
The bill certainly is not perfect. Maybe it will take
generations for us to find the best way to deal with the
environment, but it is important that Bill C-32 pass and that
this very important step be taken.
My northern Ontario riding includes the north shore of Lake
Huron and the eastern shore of Lake Superior. It is a beautiful
area. It is important to my constituents that strong, effective
environmental legislation be in place. I have confidence that
Bill C-32 will be that important step which my constituents need
as we enter the next millennium.
Many of my communities depend on the forestry and mining
sectors. At all times we have to balance the need for jobs and
economic development with the needs of the environment. We
cannot go back to the days when the population was small, when
numbers were few. We are where we are. I believe that Bill C-32
provides us with the best balance possible at this point in time.
I encourage my colleagues across the way to support the
government in this initiative.
1715
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made Monday, May 31, 1999, it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to complete the third reading stage of the bill now
before the House.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
YEAS
Members
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 189
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Caccia
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Riis
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Venne – 53
|
PAIRED
Members
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Fournier
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Ianno
|
Lefebvre
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Normand
| Plamondon
| Proud
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
1750
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.52 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
WORKPLACE SAFETY
The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
knowing how I tend to speak I will take the four minutes instead
of the three.
In my remarks I was indicating to the House the importance of
the motion put forward by my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I indicated how we in this
party would be supporting it. We had introduced very similar
legislation through a private member's bill by the leader of our
party, the hon. member for Halifax.
I talked a little about those of us in mining communities, those
of us who come from towns where we know the price paid when mine
safety regulations are not adhered to. I was concluding by
saying that what we need is not further study on this. That is
the only criticism I have of the motion. What we need is action.
That is exactly what the bill put forward by the New Democratic
Party would do.
There are those who will wonder whether or not other nations
have legislation. They do. I point out briefly in the short
time I have that both Australia and Great Britain are taking
steps to address the problem of illegal criminal actions by
corporations that result in the deaths of their workers. The
focus here is Westray but it could apply to many other industries
and many other corporations.
The tragedy among many tragedies in Westray was that the
victims' families sought to see justice done. They sought to see
the major players in that corporation brought to court and tried
for determination as to their guilt or their innocence.
Unfortunately, the Canadian judicial system could not do that
because there is no law that holds a corporation liable for the
murder of its workers.
I have indicated that Australia and Great Britain are moving in
that direction. The Australian criminal code of 1995 allows
corporations to be held liable for criminal conduct if it can be
proven that the practices or culture of the company encouraged or
at least did not prohibit the alleged offence. Had we that piece
of legislation in this country, then the corporate owners who in
the finding of Justice Richards wilfully neglected the welfare of
their workers, could have been brought to justice by Justice
Richards.
The British Law Reform Commission in 1996 recommended to
parliament in that country the creation of an offence of
corporate killing where the behaviour of the corporation falls
below that which would be expected of a corporation in the
circumstances.
I urge members of the government when they are considering the
changes to the Cape Breton Development Corporation that they bear
in mind by divesting themselves of their responsibility, they
move the mining legislation to the provincial legislation and the
same accident can happen in Cape Breton that happened in Westray.
1755
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to
Motion No. 455 regarding accountability for workplace safety.
The hon. member's motion raises an issue that is of interest to
a great many of us in this House. I would like to thank him for
bringing this matter before the House and for drawing attention
to the question of safety in the workplace, an important issue
for all Canadians.
I share the hon. member's concern and sadness for the Westray
disaster. None of us can look back on that event, especially
after hearing the results of the public inquiry that followed,
and not want to do something to prevent a similar disaster from
ever happening again.
I would like the hon. member to know that I share his desire to
act and that I am in support of the spirit of this motion which
has the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors
are held properly accountable for workplace safety. That said
however, I cannot support Motion No. 455 because of its possible
implications beyond federal jurisdiction.
In looking at ways to achieve safer and healthier workplaces,
legislative change is one way to address the problem of
accountability. Legislative change such as the hon. member
opposite is proposing is quite complex and not easily achieved.
In Canada there are 14 different jurisdictions covering
occupational safety and health. Legislation on these matters is
covered by the federal, provincial and territorial governments
which makes the situation very complex. For example, the North
American agreement on labour co-operation, a labour side
agreement to NAFTA, still has not been ratified by all of our
provinces and territories even after several years. In other
words, securing an agreement for legislative change at the
federal level is one thing but implementation is a different
matter entirely due to the issue of jurisdiction. This is not to
say that occupational health and safety does not require our
attention as members of parliament. Certainly not.
In 1997 on average one out of 18 Canadian workers was injured in
the workplace meaning that a workplace accident occurred every
nine seconds. There were a total of 800,000 injuries that year
with 18 million working days lost, the equivalent of one year's
work for 71,000 Canadians. Sadly, workers between the ages of 15
and 24 are most at risk for work related accidents.
In addition to the high human cost, there is also a significant
impact on the economy. In 1997 workplace accidents resulted in
$5 billion in direct compensation payments to victims and an
additional $5 billion in indirect costs to the employer.
Numbers like these are cause for concern for all of us. Given
the human and economic costs involved, we should explore the
potential need for new legislative approaches to ensure health
and safety in our workplace.
I want to assure the hon. member opposite that we are looking at
the Westray tragedy specifically. My colleague the Minister of
Justice has written to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia
offering her commitment to study recommendation 73 of the Westray
report. As well she is instructing federal officials to develop
options for legislative reform. A number of stakeholders and
experts will be consulted in this process.
The explosion in the Westray mine on May 9, 1992 killed 26
miners. A public inquiry clearly established that incompetence
and mismanagement created the unsafe working environment that was
the direct cause of this terrible tragedy. The inquiry's report
also set out 74 recommendations for improving mine safety and
preventing such a sad accident from ever happening again. The
last two recommendations deal with corporate accountability.
Recommendation 74 suggested that the Government of Nova Scotia
review its occupational health and safety legislation to ensure
that corporations are held accountable for any failure to secure
and maintain a safe workplace. This recommendation is outside
the scope of today's debate but I mention it because it
illustrates the role that provincial legislatures have to play in
the area of workplace safety and corporate accountability.
1800
Recommendation 73 states that the Government of Canada, through
the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the
accountability of corporate executives and directors for the
wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation, and should
introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to the
legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives
and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.
As I have noted, this recommendation is being studied both in
terms of the responsibility of the corporation itself and also
the liability of the people it employs.
Legislation is not the only way to address the issue of
workplace safety. We can also achieve great benefit by working
proactively to promote a better understanding and awareness of
its importance. Over the years, we have seen the correlation
between increased education and awareness and an improved
occupational health and safety record. By focusing more
attention on training and education, we can and will reduce the
incidence of accidents. There is no question that educating
people, teaching them how to work safely, is a key component.
This is something that the government has already made a
priority. In recent years, the labour program has worked closely
with its partners in the public and private sectors to raise
awareness about the rights and responsibilities for the health
and safety in Canadian workplaces. The emphasis has been on the
prevention of injury and illness. By seeking to increase
awareness and understanding among employers and employees, as
well as the public at large, we reinforce the message that
individual actions can be just as important as legislation when
it comes to improving workplace safety.
In my riding of Guelph—Wellington there are several examples of
the effectiveness of using education and awareness to improve
workplace safety. For example, Blount Canada continues to
implement and expand its three year old ergonomic improvement
process aimed at preventing injuries, not only by improving
equipment but also by providing additional training opportunities
to its employees. Blount has seen that even a small increase in
awareness translates into a big improvement in safety.
On June 16, Genesta Manufacturing, also located in
Guelph—Wellington, will celebrate three years without a single
lost time accident. Its systemic health and safety system,
combined with weekly staff safety meetings, monthly safety audits
and monthly management reviews have made safety everybody's very
first priority.
Huntsman Corporation, another example from my riding, involves
all of its employees in its health and safety initiatives. Its
joint health and safety committee meets three times more often
than is required by law. Hunstman also has a safety recognition
program for the employees who remain accident-free. This
commitment to safety carries over into the community by working
closely with the local fire and police departments and other
municipal officials to develop emergency response plans in the
event that an accident does occur.
The spirit of Motion No. 455 is commendable. The goal of
creating a safer workplace is one we all share in all parties,
whether we use legislation, education or, most effectively, a
combination of the two. I wholeheartedly support the idea of
working on the problem and know that the government will continue
to address the issue of workplace safety.
In reality, safety is a concern to all of us. Education is one
of the most important components and we will continue to
investigate this area. We must.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member opposite speaking about
the motion and her idea that she could support the principle of
the motion but not the motion itself. I think there is something
wrong with that logic.
I also listened with interest to the member of the NDP who
talked about a similar NDP motion and how they supported this
motion in principle.
1805
I think it should be made very clear to the members of the House
and to all the people listening to this debate that the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough filed this private member's
bill during the first month of parliament. The New Democratic
Party waited a full six months before it filed a similar bill.
It is important to get that on the record.
I am pleased to rise for the second hour of debate on behalf of
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to discuss Motion
No. 455, a motion introduced by my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
I would like to explain what happened on that dreadful morning
back in May 1992. It may help everyone in the House gain a
better understanding of what provoked this motion. On May 9,
1992 at 5.20 a.m., a violent explosion ripped under the tiny
community of Plymouth, just east of the town of Stellarton, Nova
Scotia. The explosion occurred in the depths of the Westray coal
mine, instantly killing the 26 miners working there at the time.
Motion No. 455 was introduced to ensure that something like this
never happens again. Workplace safety must be the norm across
the country no matter what profession one chooses. Every
Canadian has the right to feel safe at work, and every corporate
executive must take the initiative to ensure those standards are
met. Motion No. 455 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other
appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with
Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry
into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring
that corporate executives and directors are held properly
accountable for workplace safety.
Recommendation 73 in the report of the inquiry commissioner,
Justice Peter Richard, reads as follows:
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice,
should institute a study of accountability of corporate
executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of
the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada
such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that
corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable
for workplace safety.
I see nothing in that proposed bill that would prevent any
member of parliament from supporting this excellent piece of
proposed legislation.
Recommendation 73 does not endorse any particular legislative
action by parliament. However, I will proceed by stressing that
Motion No. 455 wishes to address the concerns referred to by
Justice Peter Richard in his report, with an emphasis on the
personal liability of key corporate officials.
The proposal to create a new criminal offence for corporate
officials for failing to maintain safe workplaces would, by
definition, require adding new provisions to the Criminal Code.
This could be done by adding new sections to the Criminal Code
under sections 467.5 and 467.6. Section 467.6 would extend
criminal liability for this corporate failure to every officer or
director of the corporation who knew or ought to have known,
based on their experience, qualifications and duties, about the
unsafe conditions in question.
Another way to address the matter would be to amend the Criminal
Code provisions which define criminal negligence, section 219,
and culpable homicide, section 222, in a way which specifically
addresses death or bodily harm caused by a failure to maintain
workplace safety on the part of a director or an executive of a
corporation.
The drawback to this approach, however, is that it does not deal
with situations where death or injury do not result. As well, if
one wished to strengthen the accountability of corporate
officials for workplace safety violations of their corporations,
one could amend section 149.2 of the Criminal Code to include
additional circumstances in which their liability would be
triggered.
I am sure members are aware that most corporate officials
support and foster safe working conditions. However, others have
a more cavalier attitude toward fair labour practices and
workplace safety. This approach cannot be condoned in any
capacity. As Canadians and as workers, we are entitled to wake
up and go to our place of work, wherever that may take us, and
know that our well-being as individuals is protected and our
workplace safety is reinforced and upheld on a daily basis.
However, in many situations the almighty dollar overshadows the
secure working environment to which we are all entitled. Of
course, the bottom line of any business is to make a profit at
the end of the day, and that is a very normal mindset for anyone
who operates a business, large or small.
If there is no profit at the end of the day there will be no
business shortly thereafter. In short, profitability equals
sustainability.
1810
However, we must not let employers allow profits to take
precedence over workplace safety. This mindset is precisely what
sets the tone for workplace tragedies and creates unsafe working
conditions. Businesses must ensure that their employees are
adequately supervised and consistently updated on safe work
practices. Sadly, in the past we have all witnessed poorly
trained officials doing jobs they were not properly trained to
perform.
It is essential that companies take the time to train employees
so that additional risk is limited for that employee and those
around them. Management must also ensure that their employees
have an appreciation for any special dangers inherent at the job
site.
In the case of the Westray coal mine specifically, many of the
tradesmen were prone to perform unsafe tasks or to take dangerous
shortcuts in their work. In many cases there was no question
that management was well aware, or ought to have been aware, that
safe mining practices were not being performed.
As stated in Justice Richard's report:
—there was no question that Westray management knew that the
levels of methane underground at the coal mine were hazardous.
Under section 72 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, such
conditions mandated the withdrawal of workers from the affected
area, and that is the primary reason, management in this instance
chose to ignore the fact.
As a case in point, to make matters even worse, this same
management purchased farm tractors to work underground in a
potentially explosive environment. These same farm tractors went
directly from the lot to the mine and were not explosion proof.
In this situation, as in all situations, the open door policy of
management could have helped prevent the death of 26 coal miners
that devastating morning. No employee ever wants to feel as if
their safety concerns are falling on deaf ears. A collaborated
effort between upper, middle and lower management must be invoked
to create an environment that is hazardous free for every
employee in Canada. Of course, accidents happen, but measures
must be in place to minimize the risk of death and injury.
No single environment is 100% danger free but in most cases the
risk of danger can be significantly less with a bit of common
sense.
Referring to the Westray coal tragedy, the inquiry set out the
following: the occurrence of the explosion that resulted in loss
of life; whether the occurrence was preventable; whether any
neglect caused or contributed to the explosion in any way; and
finally, whether the mine was in compliance with the applicable
statutes, regulations, orders, rules and directions.
These questions that were investigated at the time of the
inquiry are many of the same questions that should be reviewed
with business executives on a daily basis to ensure that they are
operating a safe company. As well, it would be a good
opportunity to ensure that businesses are in compliance with the
current regulations.
As representatives of the federal government, we have to ensure
that accountability is upheld in the country so that situations
such as Westray and others do not repeat themselves.
The devastation of Westray will be felt for many years in the
tiny community of Stellarton and indeed in all of Nova Scotia.
Today, on behalf of every individual affected by this horrible
tragedy, I ask members to lend their assistance to this motion
and give it their strongest consideration and support.
It is incumbent upon every member of parliament in the House to
look at the motion as it has been put forth. It is a very strong
attempt to curb such an accident from ever happening again in
Canada. I think the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
deserves our support and the support of the House for the motion.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
for bringing this motion to the attention of the House, and his
efforts to bring up the motion so that members can reflect on its
intent and the issues that it raises for all of us.
I know only peripherally the tragic circumstances that bring the
motion forward, but the hon. member needs to be congratulated
again for making that effort.
1815
The motion is to amend the Criminal Code or other appropriate
federal statutes to ensure that corporate executives and
directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety. I
understand there is an amendment to the motion to include the
phrase “following a study by the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights”. I understand that to be an amendment by a
Bloc member.
The hon. member is an active member of the justice committee. I
have spent quite a number of hours with him on the justice
committee on a variety of issues. I know he is keenly engaged in
justice issues. I also know his background as a crown attorney
and I dare say a very good crown attorney.
In the work of a crown attorney the question comes up, if there
is an incident, what will the charge be, what can we prove? The
police come forward with their evidence and say that a particular
charge needs to be laid. The crown will test the evidence to see
whether it is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
The question here is whether the circumstances as generated by
the Westray disaster show some deficiency in the Criminal Code or
in some federal statute. Were I a crown attorney or were he a
crown attorney in those circumstances, the first question that
would need to be asked is whether there is current legislation
that adequately deals with the issue.
It needs to be brought out in the debate that the Canada Labour
Code already provides for officer and director liability. The
code provides that directors and officers of corporations found
guilty of an offence are to be liable on summary conviction to a
fine not exceeding $100,000. In addition part II provides for
the possibility of conviction on indictment for a fine not
exceeding $1 million and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years.
We may quibble with whether those are adequate sanctions in
circumstances such as the Westray disaster, but it is not as if
the legislation in Canada is silent on the matter. It clearly
provides for director liability. I wish to make a distinction
here between director liability which is somewhat frequently
removed from the incident itself and the tests that usually go on
with criminal liability where the individual has to have actually
done the action in order to be liable.
If the crown chose not to proceed by way of the Canada Labour
Code for whatever reason, is there some basis for the charge
under the code as it presently exists? Criminal negligence is
defined in section 219 of the Criminal Code: “Everyone is
criminally negligent who in doing anything or in omitting to do
anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless
disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”. I will
repeat for the purposes of emphasis “in omitting to do anything
that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for
the lives or safety of other persons”.
I am not as familiar with the facts of the Westray disaster as
is my hon. friend. However from what I do know of the Westray
disaster, that appears to me to be the charge which a crown
attorney might reasonably lay in the circumstances. If the facts
established that the directors or officers showed a wanton or
reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons and
if the crown decided not proceed under the Canada Labour Code for
whatever reason, I would have to question why we would want to
amend the Criminal Code if that is present.
1820
Section 220 concerns criminal negligence causing death: “Every
person who by criminal negligence causes death of another person
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable”. In section
221: “Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily
harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years”.
I would submit there is adequate provision in the Criminal Code
as it presently stands for liability of a director or an officer
of a corporation who shows wanton or reckless disregard for the
lives or safety of other persons. I am therefore in the
situation of sympathizing with the issue that is raised by
recommendation 73 in the inquiry, but I am hard pressed to know
how the laws of Canada as they are presently written both in the
Criminal Code and in the Canada Labour Code are inadequate to
address the circumstances.
Failing the issue of being able to address how there is a
deficiency, I cannot see how we could support the passage of this
motion.
In summary may I say that I commend the hon. member for his
response to a disaster in his community which has implications
that are really only remotely understood by us. Having said that,
I am at a loss to know how there is an inadequacy in the
legislation, both in the Criminal Code and in the Canada Labour
Code, which would not adequately respond to the issues.
Those are the issues I wanted to raise in response to the
motion. I would find myself in difficulty in supporting the
motion.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to
Private Member's Motion No. 455 which asks the government to
amend the Criminal Code or other federal statutes to ensure that
corporate executives and directors be held accountable for
workplace safety.
This motion also asks the House to pay particular attention to
recommendation 73 of the Nova Scotia Westray mine disaster
inquiry. It calls on the Government of Canada through the
Department of Justice to study the accountability of corporate
executives and directors for wrongful or negligent acts. The
recommendation asks for the amendment of legislation to be
introduced as necessary to ensure the accountability of these
executives and directors.
All Canadians know the solemn background to the introduction of
this motion. The Westray mine disaster claimed the lives of 26
Canadian mine workers. These disasters are a devastating event
for any mining community. Our hearts go out to the families and
friends of the victims of the Westray disaster. It was a very
sad event in our history.
We want to learn from this disaster and prevent or at least
prepare for the next disaster. We want to establish lines of
accountability. If we can prevent a tragedy, then we want to
know who is responsible for not preventing one and what as a
society we are going to do about it. That is the intent of the
motion we are debating.
What is wrong with this motion is that it has deviated from the
recommendation made by the Westray inquiry. The inquiry asked for
the matter of accountability to be studied. The motion jumps to
Criminal Code amendments. The NDP leader's Private Member's Bill
C-468 is similar to what the present motion is asking us to do.
This smacks of political opportunism to me.
The mistake in the motion is that it does not reflect what the
commission of inquiry wanted and I think it is premature.
Let us consider a few things that need to be examined and what
this misdirected motion is missing.
1825
We must consider the position of unions. What about union
executive responsibility and accountability? What about shop
stewards and their responsibility for on-site safety and health?
What about the responsibility of federal and provincial labour
inspectors? What about other government and ministerial
responsibilities?
Would smaller companies be hindered or hurt if only the
executives were held criminally accountable for an unsafe or
hazardous worksite? On the other hand the government should
protect our small businesses that are creating jobs and are the
engines of our economy.
The crown in Nova Scotia currently has the power to prosecute
negligent mine managers who are on-site and responsible. This is
true across Canada. Yes we should study our laws and make them
stronger if need be.
I contacted the B.C. Workers Compensation Board with respect to
this motion. In British Columbia the Workers Compensation Act is
being changed effective October 1, 1999. The changes include
dealing with penalties for corporate directors whose companies
are in violation of health and safety regulations. These changes
come from recommendations made by the royal commission that
studied the Workers Compensation Board in British Columbia. The
commission recognized the need for personal responsibility under
prescribed circumstances on the part of senior management in
order to enhance workplace health and safety.
Recommendation No. 37 recommends that the province's
occupational health and safety statute allow the occupational
health and safety agency to apply to the courts to obtain an
injunction. Until October 1, 1999 the Workers Compensation Act
does not grant the board the authority to obtain an injunction
when it feels that the health and safety of workers is not being
looked after.
The power of getting such an injunction may be available through
other legislation, but in British Columbia we felt it necessary
to put the authority to get an injunction into the Workers
Compensation Act.
Injunctions allow an agency to take prompt action to address
potential or existing harm. They can be obtained quickly, often
without advance notice. Injunctions allow us to rely on our
courts for enforcement power. If the injunction is disobeyed,
the breach can be converted into civil or criminal contempt
proceedings. I believe this is what the current motion is trying
to obtain.
Let us look closely at what prosecutions can be pursued. I quote
from a document:
Prosecutions can occur when a recommendation for a more stringent
sanction arises out of an accident rather than merely a hazardous
situation.
Perhaps the greatest shortcoming with prosecution as an
enforcement option has been the relatively high chance of
acquittal.
Traditionally, the chances of an accused successfully defending
an occupational health and safety prosecution and being acquitted
have always been relatively good. Most prosecutions are against
employers, and the low conviction rate reflects the fact that
judges are not keen on convicting employers, except in cases
where management has clearly been at fault ... (Fault) should not
usually be the relevant legal criterion for deciding whether
someone has breached an occupational health and safety statute.
What sometimes happens in practice, however, is simply that the
judges interpret the facts and the law in light of their own
perceptions about the value of health and safety prosecutions.
Another disadvantage from a compliance perspective is that
judges can choose to impose fines and/or imprisonment that falls
short of the maximum a statute might permit. In addition,
prosecutions do not provide a direct remedy for affected workers.
The strength of prosecution as an enforcement option is that a
monetary penalty and/or a term of imprisonment can make a very
strong impression on any offender, employer and worker alike, and
send a strong message of deterrence. In addition, the stigma
associated with prosecution can have a profound effect on a
corporate or non-corporate employer concerned with its public
image. This effect may extend beyond that realized by the
financial penalty.
1830
The Liberals did not listen to the Krever commission of inquiry
into the tainted blood tragedy in Canada. The commission of
inquiry on aboriginals in Canada is being ignored or toyed with
by the Liberals. The Liberals stopped the Somalia inquiry dead
in its tracks. There the people of Nova Scotia and all other
Canadians know that the Liberals will not do anything about the
recommendations of the Westray mine disaster inquiry.
In conclusion, I support the recommendations of the Westray mine
disaster inquiry and I urge the government to conduct a study as
recommended.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I reiterate that the government is committed to promoting the
fundamental right of Canadians to a safe and healthy work
environment and to considering new ideas and suggestions which
would help us to meet those commitments.
The motion being presented is certainly worthy of note and
interesting to consider. I am therefore pleased to join this
debate and to share some of my thoughts on the motion and the
amendment before the House.
From the tone of the debate on this motion so far, it seems that
members on all sides of the House share a concern for Canadian
workers. We know that to be true. Certainly it is an important
issue that we on the government side share. We also share a
desire to see safer and healthier workplaces. We want to reduce
the cost of workplace accidents and illness in both human and
economic terms.
Every year approximately 800,000 workers are injured or contract
illnesses while doing their jobs. Millions of work days are lost
because of illness or injury. Accordingly the cost to the
Canadian economy runs to an estimated $10 billion annually. There
is no question in both human and economic terms these costs are
too high and require our attention.
While we may be in accord on the desire for change, we need to
look at possible solutions a little more carefully. For example,
Motion No. 455 asks that we amend the appropriate federal
statutes including the Criminal Code. This is easier said than
done. Proposals to amend federal statutes relating to labour
matters can have far-reaching implications and we need to look
more carefully at them.
It is true that it is within federal power to create new
offences under the Criminal Code, but we have to be cognizant of
the fact that such changes could infringe on the jurisdictions of
the provinces and territories to legislate in areas of workplace
safety.
Members of the House are well aware of the sensitivity of
federal-provincial concerns in areas of economic and social
policy. I dare say we would not want to initiate any changes to
federal legislation which would have an unattended impact. In
this case, for example, while the intent of the motion is one
thing, the impact of the changes it proposes is quite another.
Since amendments to the Criminal Code that have implications for
provincial labour jurisdiction would require the support of the
provinces and territories, we need to know how we to obtain that
kind of support. We need to study this aspect very carefully.
To start with, we need to look at what legislation is already in
place such as under the Canada Labour Code, for example. As hon.
members will recall, legislation concerning occupational safety
and health in the federal jurisdiction is part of the Canada
Labour Code.
The code covers a broad range of industries under federal
jurisdiction. The best examples are railways, highway transport,
telecommunications, pipelines, shipping, radio and television
broadcasting, banks, and a few other areas. In addition, the
code covers employees of the federal public service including
employees of some 40 crown corporations and agencies.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code is of particular interest to
us because it deals with occupational health and safety. It is
under part II that we already have legislation in place to deal
with workplace safety, at least in the federal jurisdiction.
This legislation is intended to prevent accidents and injuries to
health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of
employment which is subject to federal jurisdiction.
1835
In other words, part II of the existing Canada Labour Code
already includes provisions for standards for workplace safety as
well as sanctions and penalties for those who are found to be in
contravention of the code.
As we consider this issue it is very important to look at what
is already in the Canada Labour Code, specifically part II of
that code. Even if we eventually look to solutions beyond the
Canada Labour Code, we will need to keep in mind the three
principles set out in the code as fundamental rights of workers.
These are the right to know about known or foreseeable hazards
in the workplace, the right to participate in identifying and
resolving job related safety and health problems; and the right
to refuse dangerous work if the employee has reasonable cause to
believe that a situation constitutes a danger to him or her or to
another employee.
The code also includes a set of occupational safety and health
regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both
employers and employees to follow. Part II of the labour code
says that corporate executives and directors will be held
accountable if these standards are not met. If company directors
and officers are found guilty of an offence under the labour
code, they will be liable on a summary conviction to a fine of up
to $100,000. For a conviction on indictment the labour code
calls for a fine of up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for a
term of up to two years.
For the federal jurisdiction we already have sanctions in place
which govern workplace safety issues and hold corporate officers
and directors liable for their actions in cases of negligence or
wrongdoing. Although we have legislation in place under the
Canada Labour Code, we must recognize that it does not cover the
majority of workers in Canada. It only covers those who fall
under federal jurisdiction.
It is fair to say that we have more work to do in the area of
legislating workplace safety. Instead of referring the matter to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as proposed by
the member, I would prefer to see the matter referred to the
Minister of Justice for further study. In other words, I cannot
support the Motion No. 455 as proposed and I think the majority
of Canadians in reviewing this matter would agree with my
position.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will elaborate a bit on something my colleague from
South Shore alluded to earlier when he talked about the
initiative we are discussing tonight. We are discussing a motion
that was put forward by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. With reference to the
initiative by the New Democratic Party, I would like to declare
that our initiative is of a legal nature. Although the motion
will hopefully gain the willingness of the House, our initiative
provides the legal means to do so.
When it comes to defining in one crystal clear example the
principle which underlines this motion, the principle is clear in
the Westray mine disaster of 1992. Seven years ago more than two
dozen men went to work and died there. They died horrible deaths,
deaths made more terrible because they were completely
unnecessary and made more tragic because those men died,
according to what some believe, to boost the company's profits.
In the aftermath of the disaster fingers were pointed by all
sides, including the accusation that the men who died were found
responsible for their deaths. The commission rejected that
assertation, as well it should have, and pointed the finger of
blame at a culture of greed which permeated the company. Ignoring
the dangerous nature of the business, the owners tried to extract
every cent they could from a workforce desperate for work, from a
community where any job would receive 100 applications. I am
providing these details because I believe they are critical to
achieving an understanding of what truly occurred in May 1992.
I will always be the first to stand in support of good business,
large or small, that treats its workers with dignity and respect.
What I aim to do here is to expand the definition of a
successful corporation to make it include the successful and safe
guidance of any workforce through their working lives.
I believe this motion is based on one of the strongest
foundations of our law which states that we are all responsible
for our actions.
1840
In recent years this basic rule of law has been stretched,
twisted and manipulated. Some would say we must remember that
those who stretch, twist and manipulate the law are individuals
who make choices, who decide they will overlook flaws in their
equipment, who will cut back on safety training, and who will
knowingly send their workers into dangerous environments. Those
individuals should be held accountable for those choices.
In the closing years of this millennium we have finally reached
the stage of evolution in our civilization where we no longer
allow the excuse of I was just following orders to stand as a
valid defence for knowingly causing harm to others. When it
comes to the behaviour of our military and our government
officials, we now expect that every individual will make a moral
decision based not on what they have been told but on what they
know to be the difference between right and wrong.
We hope the motion will expand this welcome step forward and
could possibly be a prelude to the legal initiative that has been
put forth by the New Democratic Party, so that in the future it
will not be possible for a mine manager to say that the company
president forced him to order the alteration of safety reports or
for his CEO to be protected from blame.
In addition to responsibility equality is a foundation stone of
society. We may never achieve it but it remains a goal, an ideal
toward which we all strive. By allowing one significant segment
of our society to remain protected from our law is a flagrant
violation of the principle of equality. Is a violation easily
healed, a problem easily solved?
As I have said before, my party is not seeking a witch hunt as
we have no desire to increase the cost of doing business. We all
hope to achieve by the passage of the motion an increase in
profitability as a small number of unscrupulous firms that keep
their prices artificially low by exposing their workers to danger
are forced from the market. That opens the way for responsible
firms to increase their competitiveness and to increase not only
their bottom lines but the standard of living of their workers,
their communities and their country.
Whenever this measure is discussed or contemplated by anyone in
the House, I hope the memory of those 26 men who died seven years
ago in Nova Scotia will stay with them. There are those citizens
and business people who can and do know what it takes to run a
responsible and safe enterprise and who put those beliefs into
practice every day.
As a parliament we have a responsibility to set the moral course
for our government. When it comes to the motion before us I urge
all members to support it for success and decency and to reject
those who would cover their failures with the bodies of their
workers.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 455.
The motion says that we should amend federal statutes, including
the Criminal Code, in order to address the issue of
accountability and liability for safety in the workplace in
relation to recommendation 73 of the public inquiry of the
province of Nova Scotia into the Westray disaster.
I doubt if anyone in the House would not share the member's
concern for the victims and for the families of the victims,
those who were so tragically affected by the Westray disaster.
The Westray disaster was a tragedy that captured the attention
of the whole nation. Although it happened some time ago it
remains in our minds and underlines the need for all of us in
public office to be sensitive to the concerns of workers and to
the need to ensure safe and secure workplaces. Workers are the
backbone of our economy. Fatalities, injuries and illnesses in
the workplace cause them and their families to suffer both in
human terms and economically.
The cost of workplace accidents is high. It is estimated that
on top of all human costs, the dollar costs to our economy are as
much as $10 million a year. These costs are too high and we need
to look at ways to bring them down.
I commend the member opposite for introducing the motion. It
provides us with an opportunity to look at the situation of
workplace safety in Canada and to consider what needs to be done
by the federal government to ensure safe and healthy workplaces
for Canadians.
1845
The motion proposes that we need a new legislative approach to
workplace safety. Legislation is clearly one option, but so is
education. There are many experts in the field of occupational
health and safety who feel that prevention through education and
training is every bit as important as intervention through
legislation. These people understand the value of promoting
education and training in order to reduce the incidence of
illness and accidents in the workplace.
The national day of mourning was held last April, for example,
and we asked Canadians to remember workers who were killed or
injured as a result of occupational accidents or illnesses. The
Canadian flag was flown at half-mast on Parliament Hill in memory
of all those workers who lost their lives or who were injured on
the job.
In addition, governments and organizations throughout North
America annually co-operate to hold North American occupational
safety and health week. This year North American occupational
safety and health week was marked from May 17 to 23. As part of
this occasion the Government of Canada joined with the
governments of the United States and Mexico to promote awareness
of workplace safety throughout North America.
In addition, Canadian organizations, such as the Canadian
Society of Safety Engineering and the Canadian Centre for
Occupational Safety and Health, are working in partnership with
the federal government and others in Canadian society to promote
safe work practices. These organizations produce excellent
material to help labour, business, governments and others
interested in occupational health and safety to learn about
working together to identify and implement new approaches to
promote workplace safety. The educational information is
distributed broadly to employers and employees. The Canadian
Centre for Occupational Safety and Health has also created a very
useful website that has gained an international reputation.
The labour program is very supportive of these activities.
Indeed, for the last several years the labour program has played
a leading role in emphasizing education and awareness as a means
of promoting better workplace safety.
As hon. members can see, there is a wide variety of initiatives
under way under the leadership of Canada's Minister of Labour,
initiatives that provide useful information and focus the
attention of employers, employees and the general public on the
importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace
through education and awareness. Although the motion does not
talk about the use of information to create safer work
environments, it is important to keep in mind that education and
awareness are also important aspects of our existing approach to
promote workplace safety.
The second part of the approach, of course, is legislation. It
was some 30 years ago that the federal government developed the
occupational safety and health legislation to cover employees and
workplaces under federal jurisdiction. Over the years federal
legislation and regulations relating to occupational health and
safety have been consolidated under the Canada Labour Code. As
we consider the motion, we also need to consider what is in place
under the Canada Labour Code, especially under Part II of the
code. Part II of the code concerns occupational safety and
health for employees working in organizations under federal
jurisdiction.
The Canada Labour Code establishes three fundamental rights for
workers. First, the right to know about unsafe conditions.
Second, the right to participate in workplace decisions relating
to safety. Third, the right to refuse dangerous work. The code
also includes a set of occupational safety and health regulations
that prescribe standards and procedures for both employers and
employees.
Federal government inspectors visit workplaces, respond to
complaints, conduct investigations, prohibit access to workplaces
deemed hazardous and can impose fines for non-compliance. If
company directors and officers are found guilty of an offence
under the labour code, they will be liable on a summary
conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. For a conviction on
indictment, the labour code calls for a fine of up to $1 million
and/or imprisonment for a term of up two years.
In other words, with the Canada Labour Code we already have a
model in place to cover the enforcement of safety in the
workplace. The problem is that the Canada Labour Code covers
only those employees who are working in industries or
organizations that are subject to federal legislation.
That is only a small part of the working population in Canada.
1850
While we have an effective model in the Canada Labour Code, it
does not cover the whole population of workers, most of whom are
under provincial or territorial jurisdiction.
The difficulty with the idea of extending the federal model to
include workers outside the federal jurisdiction is that
constitutionally workplace safety is also a provincial concern.
Any moves at the federal level to encroach on provincial or
territorial legislative turf on workers' rights might not be
viewed positively by those other levels of government. Amending
the Criminal Code, for example, as the motion proposes, would
clearly run into this roadblock.
We have to find an approach that would accommodate
federal-provincial interests and that would also combine the
educational and legislative approaches.
With respect to the question of studying the liability of
corporate executives and directors, recommendation 73 of the
province of Nova Scotia's public inquiry into the Westray
disaster specifically recommended that the federal government,
through the Department of Justice, institute a study of the
accountability of corporate executives and directors. Although
the member is well intended, the Westray report recommended that
the Department of Justice review this.
I know this is a contentious area. I myself have a private
member's bill which suggests that under the Canada Business
Corporations Act directors be allowed the defence of due
diligence in the conduct of their activities. Therefore, the
issue does require further study, not by a parliamentary
committee as proposed by the amendment to Motion No. 455, but
instead by the Minister of Justice as recommended by the Westray
inquiry report.
Thus, while I support the idea of a study I do not support the
amendment.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue that
should distress every single Canadian, especially those in
British Columbia and those affected by the fishing industry.
Last week I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the
Pacific salmon treaty and, with the secret negotiations that he
has ongoing with the Alaskans and the Americans, will it be in
the best interest of British Columbians. His answer was,
“Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely”.
Indications are that the minister is not coming fully clean on
this particular treaty, and here are the reasons.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is negotiating a secret
deal on the Pacific salmon treaty without consulting the major
stakeholders in British Columbia, without the advice of the
Government of British Columbia, without the advice of the Coastal
Communities Network, without the advice of the UFAWU, without the
advice of the environmental groups which have spent so much time
and effort in conserving and protecting these very precious
stocks.
The fact that this minister is in secret negotiations tells a
lot of Canadians, especially British Columbians, that they should
be very nervous. Not one single member of parliament on the
Liberal government side or on the opposition side has been
consulted on this treaty whatsoever.
The Coastal Communities Network has asked time and time again
that before any treaty process is settled or signed there be open
and transparent hearings, at least in committee, as to exactly
what should be in the treaty.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated to a Times
columnist in Victoria on May 29, just a few days ago: “I asked
Dennis Streifel”, who is the Minister of Fisheries for British
Columbia, “for the provincial position back in January. I
repeated that request 10 days ago and I am still waiting for
it”.
The Minister of Fisheries for British Columbia, Mr. Streifel,
did indeed send the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans his response
months ago and back on May 3 the Minister of Fisheries for
British Columbia sent the federal fisheries minister copies and
indications of exactly what the Government of British Columbia
wants to see in this particular treaty.
Again the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans turned another
blank eye and another deaf ear to the request.
1855
The Coastal Communities Network has sent pages and pages of
requests, documents and information that the government could use
in its negotiations, which has been ignored and probably not even
read.
It is an absolute outrage that the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans for Canada can turn around and make a secret deal that is
so very vital to British Columbians and all Canadians. Salmon
stocks on the west coast are a common property resource.
It is true that the federal government, along with the
provincial government and many other stakeholders, have worked
tirelessly over the last few years to preserve and protect those
stocks. They certainly cannot stand around and allow the federal
government to give away fish for fish.
One of the most important principles of previous treaties signed
with the Americans, with Strangway and Ruckelshaus and all of
those other deals, is the fact that British Columbian spawned
fish belong first to British Columbia. When they come back they
belong to British Columbia.
We seem to have a deal where the minister apparently will trade
off one for one on the fish. That means the Alaskans will obtain
more fish than British Columbians. That goes against the three
treaties that were signed. It goes against the principle of
equity. I ask the parliamentary secretary how he can stand in
the House to defend that position when the minister is indicating
that he will give away our fish stocks. I cannot wait for his
answer.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite
talked at the beginning of his remarks about distress. What is
distressing is the kind of games that the B.C. government has
been playing over this particular issue.
It is interesting that the member opposite talks about secrecy,
yet he elaborates constantly on unfounded rumours. The time for
rhetoric is past. That is why the minister is negotiating so
intently. The time for rhetoric is past and the time for getting
the job done is now. It is time to settle. It is time to
negotiate a Pacific salmon treaty that builds for the future, in
the interests of the fishery, the coastal communities, the
province of B.C. and all of Canada.
Let us turn to the facts for a moment. The lack of agreement
under the Pacific salmon treaty has been a concern for all those
who care about salmon. We did not reach an agreement last year
with Alaska. However, interim agreements with the state of
Washington in 1998 resulted in a 75% reduction of their harvest
of our threatened Thompson River coho. Clearly, co-operation
with the United States is a crucial issue to ensure a future for
the salmon resource.
Canada's goal has been to take our domestic approach to put the
fish first and translate it into new arrangements under the
Pacific salmon treaty.
The minister is encouraged to report that the talks are
proceeding well. They are being conducted on a
government-to-government basis, as recommended by the special
advisers. In these discussions we have been guided by three
objectives. First, to adopt more effective conservation regimes
that put the needs of fish first. Second, to restrict the
interception of Canadian bound salmon and move fish to Canada.
Three, to secure improved bilateral co-operation on science and
salmon management.
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to address
again an issue that should come as a real shock to most
Canadians.
The Liberal government, through Canada's Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, through the CSC, has this insidious plan
that it wants to release 50% of the inmate population by the year
2000.
We have been looking at this issue at the justice committee. We
had the privilege of having the CSC commissioner, Ole Ingstrup,
bless us with his presence the other day. He still denies that
this is even a fact.
This is absolutely shocking. This is a malodorous plan that was
hoisted upon an unsuspecting public some time ago. If this is
allowed to happen, once again the Canadian public will be
affected by this. It will be an absolute disgrace if this is
allowed to happen.
We know that there have been internal memos circulated by CSC
officials setting out specifically that there are targets. The
unfortunate language used was that there are numerical goals,
balanced distribution, a reintegration agenda, plan or process,
achievable numbers, release objectives, equalization between
institution and community population, and agreed upon goals.
They are very careful never to use the word quotas, though, but
we do know that a quota is a quota is a quota.
1900
Nowhere in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does it
ever talk about numerical goals, targets or redistribution. Yet
this is the type of language that very clearly sets out this
insidious plan.
The commissioner was very reluctant to admit that this has
happened. Yet it is very clear that there was a plan to open the
doors of the jails and let 50% of the inmate population back out
on to the street without following the proper process that is put
in place to determine the criteria as to whether inmates should
be released.
Another very disturbing point about it is that it is completely
contrary to law. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever that it
is even happening, although in fact this documentation clearly
shows that there has been directions given to corrections and
conditional release officials. There is obviously a disincentive
for wardens not to follow the directives which have come from
deputy commissioners such as Brendan Reynolds in Ontario.
There are even specific numbers referenced for the province of
Ontario: 660 inmates are to be released by December 31, 1999.
It is absolutely unbelievable that this could be going on at a
time when our law enforcement community is working harder and
harder with less resources, at a time when the public confidence
is perhaps at an all time low in our justice system. Yet this
plan is hatched in a very secretive way.
When confronted with irrefutable evidence that these statistics
are referenced in internal documents, the commissioner simply
says unfortunate language was used. There is a complete denial
on behalf of the solicitor general's department that it was even
happening.
Although their knuckles have been rapped and this has been
exposed for what it was, which is an absolute sham, the
government is now saying it never happened and that it was not in
place at all. I suspect the government will slink away with its
tail between its legs and simply proceed in perhaps some other
fashion.
This is an extremely dangerous initiative. What has taken place
should come as a great shock to anybody who is working currently
in corrections.
There is absolutely no doubt that this plan was afoot. The
parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general will rise
shortly and tell us that it was not happening. We know it was
happening. Thankfully, through the diligence of the opposition,
we have exposed it. Through the diligence of Ontario victims
services, it has been exposed for what it was. We hope it will
be changed. We do not want to see it proceeding any further.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to things
that he called distressing.
What I found particularly distressing is seeing that my
colleague, who got the answers he was seeking from all those he
put the questions to, is back in the House today putting the
same questions, because what interests him is not the content of
the response, but rather the show he wants to put on in the
House.
He has put his question to the current solicitor general and his
predecessor. He has put his question to the commissioner of
correctional services and to me as parliamentary secretary.
Everyone gave him the same answer.
Everyone tried to explain to him, and I will do so again, not
for him, because he does not need it, but for the public—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jacques Saada: —if he allows me to speak.
For the public, I would explain just what is happening.
At the moment, considerable effort, and this is recognized by
the auditor general in his report, is going into improving the
way inmates to be paroled will be reintegrated into society. All
this effort is based on very solid programs, which are science
based. The programs are not extemporaneous.
The commissioner of correctional services referred to 16
criteria that ought to be used to evaluate the way inmates will
be paroled and so on.
There are no quotas. There have never been quotas. There will
never be quotas.
All that for one very simple reason: what counts first and
foremost is not the quota figures, but public safety. He does
not have exclusive prerogative on public safety.
1905
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on April 23, the day after Earth Day, I asked the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of the Environment a question about
government initiatives to keep the earth a healthy place for all
to live.
Over 100 years ago the idea of protecting the environment simply
did not exist. Technology was advancing rapidly and North
American factories were booming. We did not know to what extent
we were harming the environment, the ozone layers, the water and
the wildlife. We now know that such careless activity can ruin
our beautiful planet.
Our thinking patterns have evolved considerably in the last
century in various fields including the environment, but we still
need to go further. With the new millennium around the corner we
must continue to think seriously about this important issue. This
is obviously very important for future generations.
Canadians think this is an important issue. I do as well. I
think all members do. As the Minister of the Environment
indicated in an interview recently, polls suggested over 90% of
Canadians are concerned enough about the environment to do
something economically to change it or to change their lifestyles
to better the situation.
The environment is still a top of the mind issue for Canadians.
I would argue that it is or should be top of the mind around the
world. Canadians and other global citizens want, need and expect
a strong commitment to environmental protection.
Many studies have shown that our health is directly linked to
the quality of our water, our soil and our air. We must work
hard to ensure that these resources stay clean for all humans.
Canada already has a great reputation for being a leading country
when it comes to the environment. We are known across the world
as producers of safe, healthy and nutritious food. Our
collective care about the safety of our food has made Canada
among the safest producers in the world. We must continue to
improve and modernize the methods we use.
Furthermore, Canada has a large portion of the world's
freshwater. We work hard to keep this water clean, but once
again we must continue to advance these efforts to ensure that
our lakes and rivers can continue to be used by our children and
generations to follow.
Government must take action in this area. We know the
environment is very precious to all. It is a necessity for human
life. Too many species now reach extinction every day. Too much
air, water and soil is being polluted. Although Canada is one of
the world's leaders in this area we need to continue to work hard
at saving and protecting the environment.
Furthermore, our government must work to involve other countries
in the struggle to save the earth. The world sees Canada as a
protector of human rights and a leader in finding solutions to
problems affecting other lives. We need to use this kind of
approach in the environmental area again.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to take this opportunity to
explain to all of us what the government is doing to ensure that
the earth's environment is being protected, especially as it
relates to water. What is Canada doing and what will we continue
to do to make sure the earth will remain a beautiful, clean and
healthy place for all of us to live?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, freshwater is an
essential element of the planet's life support system and one
that we cannot take for granted.
The member for Waterloo—Wellington and all Canadians are
concerned about the long term security of freshwater. They want
governments to act, to conserve and to protect this precious
resource. As the member knows, the government is acting to
protect this precious resource.
On February 10 the government announced its strategy to prohibit
bulk removals of freshwater, including removals for the purpose
of export from all major drainage basins in Canada.
The strategy respects the primary responsibility of the
provinces for freshwater management and the ecological integrity
of drainage basins. It is consistent with our international
trade obligations. The strategy lays the groundwork for
Canada-wide protection of its freshwater resources. Progress on
that federal strategy has been significant.
Canadians can be reassured that the federal Minister of the
Environment is working diligently with her provincial and
territorial colleagues to achieve a Canada-wide prohibition of
bulk water removals from the major drainage basins in Canada.
As the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington noted, ground water
is a very important issue for Canadians and the government.
Provinces are responsible for the management and protection of
ground water. The federal government is committed to working
with all provinces and territories to protect all waters in a
comprehensive way.
1910
In addition, I inform the hon. member that the federal
government continues to focus its efforts on contamination
research and pollution mitigation.
TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some time ago I asked the Minister for International
Trade what he would be doing to consult Canadians concerning the
upcoming World Trade Organization negotiations that will be
taking place in Seattle some time in November of this year.
At that time he responded that he would be asking the foreign
affairs and international trade committee to conduct a study in
Canada to report to parliament concerning this and to report to
him so that he would be in a better position to prepare Canada's
negotiating position in respect of these important negotiations.
These negotiations will be important. Canada is a very open
economy. It is a trading nation unlike many others. Something
like 40% of our GDP is dependent on exports and something like
over 30% is dependent upon imports. In some ways we are 70%
dependent on trade in one way or another. Canadians are very
knowledgeable in this area.
In the course of its travels across the country the committee
had the opportunity to consult Canadians from all walks of life
in such diverse areas as agriculture and the agri-food business
with all its complexities and differences from different products
that are sold and now manufactured into important exports, to the
issue of tariffs and industry access in other countries and how
we deal with our trading partners, to the new agenda that is
there in trade and the problems in intellectual property. We
have found in the course of those consultations that there is an
extraordinary degree of expertise because Canadians are deeply
involved in this area.
In addition, Canadians shared with us and with the committee
their concerns about what is happening in the world trading
situation. They shared with us their concerns that if trade is
allowed to continue in a way where issues involving the
environment, human rights, labour standards, or the guarantees of
the diversity of culture are not addressed, there would be a real
problem in the world. We would not be able to have a responsive
trading system which would meet the needs of Canadians. As I
said, they are aware of these issues. They are also aware that
in many areas they are able to make a real contribution to these
negotiations.
The minister is determined to consult Canadians, either through
the committee process, through the SAGIT or through the important
consultations with the provinces. I encourage the ministry to
continue in this area to make information available, whether
through the Internet or through traditional means, and to
encourage the import of knowledgeable Canadians.
I appreciate if the parliamentary secretary would inform the
House tonight on any other additional initiatives the minister
intends to put into place to ensure that when we go into the
negotiations in Seattle at the end of this year our negotiators
are fully apprised of the rich diversity and important opinion we
have available in the country.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the
remarks of the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. He can be
assured that the minister in his capacity as chairman will be
creating a considerable amount of work for the member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale.
I congratulate the member on his committee's work in the past.
He has done his utmost to involve Canadians and to seek their
advice. The minister certainly wants to encourage his continuing
to do that in the future.
On March 12 it was stated in the House that the Government of
Canada placed the utmost importance on public consultations. In
Seattle later this year the 135 members of the World Trade
Organization will launch another round of trade negotiations. At
a minimum it will address the agriculture and service sectors.
These are sectors are very important to the Canadian economy.
To prepare for this round, the government believes it is
important to hear from civil society: Canadians, non-government
organizations, business and industry groups as well as the
provinces.
1915
Consultations are well underway. Two of our standing committees
are involved. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food has held consultations with agricultural groups. The
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has
received many submissions and has held cross-country hearings.
On February 8 the Minister for International Trade launched the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
consultations. A notice was published in the Canada
Gazette calling for submissions from Canadians. The
department's website, www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca, also provides
information on the next round of negotiations.
In addition, on February 17—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but time
has expired.
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
May 11 I asked the environment minister to explain why the
Canadian Environment Protection Act amendments proposed by the
House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development were being stripped.
I asked the minister to explain why the strong CEPA was being
rejected by the Liberal cabinet after one of the lengthiest
parliamentary reviews in history, a review that provided a rare
opportunity to improve the environmental standards that protect
the Canadian public and our environment.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Bill C-32, provides
the cornerstone for environmental protection in Canada. The
legislation covers toxic substances, air and water pollution,
biotechnology, ocean dumping, hazardous wastes, fuel standards,
public participation, regulatory enforcement and other
environmental matters.
The link between the environment and human health are well
proven. The chemical contamination of our air, water and
lands are the legacy from the past century. This parliamentary
review was a chance to learn from the mistakes of this century and
begin the next century with an improved protection law for
Canadians.
Throughout the committee proceedings, environment and health
groups presented irrefutable evidence and testimony that the
legislation offered little, if any, protection for the
environment and health of the country.
Point by point and clause by clause, improvements were made to
the legislation. Committee members from the New Democratic
Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives and some
Liberal members initiated a comprehensive non-partisan effort to
strengthen the environmental standards in Canada.
The bill, as amended by committee, presented an improvement in
standards for our children and future generations. It is
unfortunate that these democratic recommendations have been
rejected by the Liberal cabinet and the Reform Party.
Under intense pressure from the industry lobbyists many
improvements made to improve the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act were reversed. A series of motions endorsed by
industry lobbyists and proposed by the Liberal Party and the
Reform Party removed virtually every committee improvement to the
original legislation, including the following points that could
have ensured environmental protection for this and future
generations.
The first point was the loss of the phase-out consideration. A
motion endorsed by the committee called for the phase out, the
total elimination of the most persistent and bioaccumulative
substances known to man. As of today, the total elimination of
these chemicals will not be required in Canada. Only the virtual
elimination of toxics substances is offered.
On Monday, I asked the Prime Minister why he, like
environmental protection, was becoming a virtual Prime Minister.
Virtual is not appreciated.
The second point was that Canadians had lost the basic essence
of the precautionary principle. Before measures to protect the
environment or human health can be taken, they must be proven to
be cost effective. Strings are attached. For example, it was
not cost effective to move sick children from living beside a
toxic site in Sydney, Nova Scotia until toxic ooze entered their
homes. It is not cost effective to clean up millions of tonnes of
radioactive waste from leaking into Canada's fourth largest
freshwater lake, the Great Bear Lake.
As the Liberal government promises Canadians that water quality
is important, its actions say otherwise. It has watered down the
environmental standards in Canada.
At a time when Canadians are increasingly concerned about
biotechnology and asking for more information and transparency,
the Liberal government has passed into law that decisions on
biotechnology environment and health risks must be decided by
the Liberal cabinet behind closed doors.
1920
As I asked the environment minister, why does the industry
wish list come first before children's health?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the
matter is the industry wish list does not come first. Children's
health comes first. Let us get some facts straight about what
Bill C-32 really does.
Bill C-32 is on the leading edge of environmental protection
legislation worldwide. It focuses on pollution prevention, which
is the most effective means of protecting our environment and the
health of Canadians including our children.
Bill C-32 strengthens the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
It enhances our authority to take action to protect the
environment and human health. Our ability to go after polluters
will be strengthened. The bill puts the environment and the
health of Canadians first by requiring that we follow the
precautionary principle.
Bill C-32 demands that the government examine all 23,000
substances in Canada to assess the risks they pose to the
environment and to the health of Canadians including children.
The bill places new deadlines for taking action where we identify
concerns. It provides us with the authority to virtually
eliminate the most dangerous toxic substances.
The member is aware that hormone disrupting substances are an
emerging concern for the health of Canadians. Bill C-32 is the
only legislation in the world that requires that research be done
on those substances. This research will provide the Minister of
the Environment and the Minister of Health with the information
needed to take action to protect our children.
Bill C-32 is a win for the environment, a win for the Canadian
public and a win for the health of Canadians including our
children. The member opposite should be applauding this leading
legislation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.)