Dennis Gruending

[The Environment, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner told us yesterday that 20 million Canadians are being exposed to deadly smog and that 5,000 of us are dying from it every year.

Ten years ago governments signed agreements to do something about it but the plan was never implemented, says the commissioner. Today we are told by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation that Ontario is the third worst polluter in North America.

The minister recently announced measures to deal with smog producing emissions but they are voluntary. What assurance can he give that his latest plan will not go the way of the first with announcements and targets but no implementation?

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it was the environment commissioner himself who said this morning that we need leadership, not more talk.

The government has promised to lead by example, but today's report shows that government departments do not even know how much water they use, how much electricity they use or how much waste they produce.

How can the government set targets for the efficient use of water and electricity or greenhouse gas reductions if it does not even have this basic information about itself? How can Canadians trust the government to clean up their environment when it cannot even begin to manage its own?

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today's report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development exposed the government's failure to deliver on a range of environmental promises.

For example, the commissioner says that the government and the provinces have been talking about smog reduction for 10 years, but that virtually nothing has been done. This deadly smog kills an estimated 5,000 Canadians every year.

Last week the minister did begin to play catch up, but the government has been in power for seven years. What has taken so long and how does the minister explain this lack of leadership?

[Species At Risk Act, May 29th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The short answer is that it bewilders me. I do not know why the government would choose a political route rather than a scientific route to describe and list species at risk.

As my colleague mentioned, private industry, which one might think would be opposed to listing species in any way which would interfere with business and ultimately profit, is telling the government to go further. I do not believe the pressure came from the private sector. I am only speculating, but I mentioned in the text of my remarks that I believe part of the problem is internal. There is pressure from various government departments that do not want somebody else telling them how to run what they consider to be their business, if I may put it that way. I would suggest that it is not just their business; it concerns all of us.

We really must act on this because time is running out. It is not only these species that are at risk. As these species disappear, we are learning some stark lessons about our own mortality on this planet.

To summarize for my hon. colleague, I do not know the answer to his question. I do know it is fundamentally important that these decisions be science based and not political in nature. The reason for having scientists make scientific decisions is clear. I fear the ability of lobbies to say that species are on land or water used by humans and, therefore, they should not be protected because it would interfere with us. I would not want to open the door to that kind of lobbying and I do not think we need a larger lobbying industry in Ottawa. Our species would suffer from that kind of development.

[Species At Risk Act, May 29th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-33, the species at risk act. It is always a pleasure to rise in the House, but I must say on this piece of legislation that my NDP colleagues and I are keenly disappointed for reasons which I will detail in a few minutes.

First, it is appropriate that we begin debate on this legislation soon after the list of species at risk of extinction in the country has grown to an all time high. Recently 14 new species were added to the list, which in Canada has been produced each spring for the past 23 years. The number of wild animals, plants, insects and marine organisms at risk of disappearing from Canada now stands at an all time high of 354. This is a stark reminder that our country's natural heritage is under threat. The rate at which species disappear from our planet speaks volumes to the overall health of our environment and ultimately our own human health.

The disappearance of these species serves as a warning sign, much like the canaries that used to be taken down mines shafts. It is a warning that something is happening to habitat. Often that something is directly related to the activities of our own species.

Worldwide we are experiencing the largest extinction epidemic since the time of the dinosaurs. Historically an average of about two to three species a year went extinct due to natural cause, but currently about two to three species go extinct every hour. This is alarming. Almost all of this is due to human causes.

Scientists believe we could lose 25% of the earth's species within the next 30 years if we stay on our present course. We in Canada have serious endangered species problems of our own and things are not getting better.

If I may detail these, 27 species have already gone extinct in Canada in the past 150 years. We now have a total of 354 species known to be at risk, and this list is growing every year. In fact 43 species have recently been added to the list.

I am talking about some of our best loved birds and animals such as the beluga whale, the woodland caribou, the burrowing owl and even the great grizzly bear. All these species could vanish from the wild in coming decades unless we take strong steps to protect them, and not only them but the places in which they live.

Legislation is long overdue. Canadians have been waiting for almost a decade for the federal government to come up with something meaningful to protect species from becoming extinct.

The Mulroney government, I must say, demonstrated political courage when at the earth summit in 1992 it committed Canada to the creation of laws aimed at protecting these vulnerable species. Canada was one of the first countries to sign the accord.

In that respect it is disappointing that after such a long wait Bill C-33 is the best the government can do. Nobody should be more disappointed than the hon. Minister of the Environment who has staked his political reputation on this legislation.

I mentioned that the NDP caucus is disappointed with Bill C-33 because the bill is fundamentally weak. This is in spite of the government's lofty claims of national protection and harsh penalties for those who would do harm to a plant, animal or fish that is in risk of being lost forever.

Canadians want and endangered species need a law that says it will protect species at risk, not a law that says it may protect those species. All the protection this bill claims to provide is left to the discretion of the minister. The only thing that the bill requires the government to do is to consult, although it does not require the minister to listen or to even follow up on those consultations.

Bill C-33 is riddled with political discretion, so much so that if passed without some substantial changes it will be the weakest bill of its kind in North America. I knew there would be a day when Mexico's environmental laws were just as strong as those in this country, I just did not expect it to happen so quickly.

Only a year ago a survey commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare told of Canadians' desire to see strong laws passed by their federal government to protect species at risk of extinction. I will give a few of the numbers involved in that survey: 91% of Canadians believed that the federal government should protect endangered species on all land in Canada; 98% of Canadians surveyed recognized that the protection of habitat was an important element if we were going to protect species at risk; 80% of Canadians preferred to have federal laws that would protect the full habitat of an endangered species; 72% of Canadians believed it was up to the federal government to take a lead in protecting these endangered species; and finally, a full 97% of Canadians surveyed said that it was important that endangered species that migrate across borders were equally protected in all North American countries.

A vast majority also indicated that they were willing to accept at least some economic consequences in order to see endangered species protected. It is important to note that eight in ten Canadians advocated placing restrictions on industries that posed a threat to endangered species. These people were willing to accept some limitation of activities such as forestry, mining and even tourism.

The government clearly has a mandate from Canadians to bring in comprehensive and meaningful legislation to protect these vulnerable species. Instead, the minister has presented us with legislation that is both weak and discretionary.

I want to talk for a few minutes about listing. Today a species is considered endangered when the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, the scientific body responsible for tracking species, decides to list the species as endangered. This committee has a mandate to make its decisions based on the best, up to date, scientific information available. However, if this bill becomes law, a species will be considered endangered only when the Minister of the Environment says it is.

In typical Liberal style, Bill C-33 formally establishes COSEWIC as the ultimate authority for determining which species are at risk of becoming extinct. At the same time, the bill prevents COSEWIC and its science based findings from having any bearing on which species are actually protected under the law. It determines which species are endangered but it is not allowed, under this legislation, to go ahead and protect those species, to list them.

In spite of the bill's fine words about community knowledge, best available information and its claim to protect our most vulnerable wildlife, everything, as we see, hinges on the opinion of the Minister of the Environment. The bill does not require the minister's opinion to be learned. It does not have to be based on science. It may be based on the list produced by COSEWIC or it may not.

As I mentioned, today there are over 350 species on the endangered list. The important question is: Will they be protected immediately upon the passage of this bill? Disturbingly, the answer is, no they will not.

The day this bill becomes law there will not be any endangered species in Canada, at least not officially. Not a single species at risk today will be protected under this law until the minister gets around to making his list. The existing list of species at risk, the result of a full 23 years of work by COSEWIC, is not grandfathered or automatically included in the legislation. I ask the question, when is an endangered species endangered, and it seems that the answer is, when the minister decides it is.

The single greatest threat to species is the loss of habitat, the places where they live, breed and feed. Habitat loss is responsible for 80% of species decline in Canada. Passing a law that does not protect habitat is really a waste of parliament's time. Again, Bill C-33 fails in this regard.

While other countries, including Mexico, have made the protection of critical habitat mandatory, Canada is proposing to make it discretionary. Once again a species will enjoy protection under the provisions of this law at the pleasure of the environment minister.

If a species is deemed worthy of protection there remains a period that can be as long as 30 months before the habitat is actually protected. Only the residents, the nest or the den is protected in the interim, and we feel that is not good enough.

All of what we are talking about occurs only on federal government lands. Provincial lands and privately owned property have not been factored into this formula.

As we discuss property issues, I want to say that I come from a riding that contains a mix of urban and rural people. I want to address the very real concerns that these people have about a law which if passed would affect them.

I want to make it clear that we in the NDP believe that people should and must be compensated if their lives are affected by a federal government plan to rescue an endangered species. Landowners must be assured that they are not facing personal losses in order to protect habitat. If land is purchased it has to be with the consent of the owner and at fair market prices. Workers whose jobs are lost or whose paycheques shrink also have to be compensated. The same goes for communities. The last thing we want to see is compensation for big companies and nothing for the employees of those companies.

We understand that Canadians want to stop more of our wildlife from disappearing forever. We also understand that the cost of protecting those species must be shared by all of us, not just the people on whose land endangered species happen to live.

As we talk about property rights, I noticed in some of the speeches made by my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance that they seem to be telling farmers and ranchers that this bill threatens their very way of life. Some suggest that farmers might have their land seized by the federal government with no guarantee of compensation. Comments like that play on people's fears, and I want to assure the House that we in the NDP will oppose that kind of tactic, the use of half truths or scaremongering in an attempt to frighten and divide people. We want a reasoned and a factual debate.

The greatest disappointment I have with Bill C-33 is its failure to protect species at risk on lands where the federal government has a clear and an undisputed jurisdiction. This may come as a surprise to some people who have been listening to the news and to comments by the Minister of the Environment. The federal government is not even willing to protect species and habitats on all of its own land.

Organizations, such as the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Mining Association of Canada, think that the federal government should be doing more to protect wildlife on the lands that it owns and oversees.

As well, Bill C-33 provides protection only on federal lands south of the 60th parallel. This means that the act gives federal habitat protection on only a small percentage really of Canada's lands.

The act also fails to offer protection for species or habitat which clearly fall under federal jurisdiction, and I am thinking now specifically of migratory birds, cross-border species and fish. Over 70% of Canada's species at risk migrate or range into the United States. Many of these species, because of Bill C-33, will lose the protection they enjoy in the United States simply by crossing the Canadian border. In fact, the White House and many senators have written to urge Canada to protect the habitat of these so-called shared species.

We might ask ourselves why there is this lack of protection. I would suggest that in large part it is due to the government's departmental turf wars. The department and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for example, do not want officials from Environment Canada telling them how to protect endangered species in our parks. Officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have no intention of letting officials from Environment Canada tell them how to protect fish habitat. The same goes for the Department of National Defence and the lands which it controls. This is a serious internal problem.

In political terms, the bottom line is that the Prime Minister is very determined to have a law on the books before the next election. The only way to make that happen is to come up with legislation that serves as a guide for the federal government whenever and if ever it feels obliged to protect a species from becoming extinct. It serves as a guide but there is no necessity written into the bill.

I want to talk for a few moments about the government's environmental record. I was rather startled to read a book review in the Globe and Mail last weekend by a writer named Andrew Nikiforuk. He was reviewing an important new book written by Maurice Strong, an environmentalist. The book described Canada environmentally as Mississippi north, a truly startling statement which bears only too much truth.

We have had tough talk about air pollution but we have yet to ratify the Kyoto protocol or to meet our emissions targets set years ago. We have talked about cleaning up the Great Lakes, which used to be the world's largest environmental initiative, but today it has fallen off the federal government's agenda. As we know, a key agreement with Ontario to work together to clean up the lakes was allowed to lapse earlier this year and has still not been renegotiated.

While the government talks about the value of community based knowledge and the important contributions Canadians can make on their own, it is leading the charge to muzzle the commission for environmental co-operation. That is the NAFTA watchdog whose job it is to help citizens blow the whistle on their own governments when they fail to enforce environmental protection laws.

I could go on but I will give one more example. Our national parks are in crisis due to years of financial cutbacks and a complete lack of direction from a government that likes to talk about environmental initiatives but too often falls short.

As I have mentioned, I and my colleagues in the NDP are disappointed by this bill. Because there was an earlier bill, Bill C-65, we thought the second run at this bill would be a vast improvement. However, it is turning out not to be the case. The mail and phone calls that have come into our offices indicate that Canadians and environmental organizations are also disappointed.

The bill is weak on the protection of species at risk and their habitats. It invites political consideration, political lobbying and ministerial discretion at every turn. It fails to include compensation provisions for workers and communities who are affected economically by action plans to rescue and recover species at risk. I know this is being looked at but it will only be looked at after this legislation is passed, if indeed it is passed.

I hope it is not passed. I urge my colleagues in the House to defeat the bill, send it back to the minister and tell him to propose a law that will really protect species at risk of becoming extinct, a law that will protect habitat from being destroyed, a law that does not mix science with politics and a law that will ensure a just and fair distribution of the costs involved with saving species at risk.

In final summary, Canada deserves and can certainly afford a better law than this to protect species at risk of becoming extinct.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today the CBC board announced that it will cut back on all local television newscasts and will lay off hundreds of people to boot. This means the death of local CBC news by stealth, by a thousand cuts and by clear political design. The president has admitted publicly that the CBC is not a priority for the government but it is a priority for millions of Canadians.

Will the Prime Minister finally commit to reinvesting adequate and long term money so that local television news can be protected and improved?

[Competition Act, May 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, last month Canadians were outraged when they learned that 90,000 tonnes of toxic waste from an American military base in Japan was bound for Canada.

A shipment of PCBs, toxins that have been linked to birth defects and illnesses including Parkinson's disease and cancer, were on a boat bound for the port of Vancouver. From there this toxic waste was going to be shipped all the way across the country to northern Ontario where it was going to be concentrated and then shipped back across the country once again to Alberta where it was destined to be burned. That is right. Toxic waste was going to be shipped from one end of the country and back again, toxic waste that was not even produced in Canada.

As we might expect, Canadians were shocked to learn that their health was going to be put at risk to do the U.S. military a favour, while making a fast buck for an American company that had set up shop in northern Ontario to get around U.S. environmental laws. Imagine an American company setting up shop in Canada to get around environmental laws. Americans used to be afraid of losing jobs to Mexico because of the combination of low environmental standards and people's dire need for work.

Members of the House and many Canadians will remember one of the great fears people had during the NAFTA negotiations. It was that Mexico's so-called trade advantage vis-à-vis employment, health and environmental standards would result in a race to the bottom in our country. We would have to do that in order to prevent job losses to Mexico. Well, things have switched. It now appears that Canada and not Mexico is the environmental patsy in North America.

We are looking at a law for example to protect endangered species. If it is passed without amendment it is going to be the weakest on the continent.

On another matter, officials from our own environment ministry are leading the charge to muzzle the Centre for Environmental Cooperation. That is the NAFTA watchdog that holds our governments accountable when they fail to enforce environmental laws.

Yesterday in the House I urged the environment minister to instruct his officials to stop undermining the work of the centre. He said at the time that I was talking rubbish. But last night Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is an environmental lawyer in the United States, spoke to a public meeting here in Ottawa. He made exactly the same charge, that is that Canada is leading a movement to undermine the Centre for Environmental Cooperation.

These are serious matters. We have a damning report as well, I might add, from the auditor general leaked only today which says that Canada is incapable of protecting its citizens from the illegal traffic, the improper storage and the wrongful disposal of hazardous waste.

While the Americans have banned the import of PCBs into their country, Canada is prepared to take them. There are tonnes and tonnes of domestically produced PCBs sitting in storage sites in this country waiting to be dealt with and technologies which could dispose of them safely. We do not have to ship them back and forth across the country and burn them.

The promises made by the Liberals during the last two election campaigns and as recently as the throne speech last fall are looking more and more like empty rhetoric. Under them we have slipped to the point where Mexico has stronger laws in place to protect the environment than we do. When it comes to protecting the health of Canadians, the government is failing all of us.

In closing I urge the government to put the health of Canadians before all else when it comes to environmental issues which we confront.

[Competition Act, May 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage and speak to Bill C-276. This is the latest incarnation of the member for Sarnia—Lambton's longstanding effort to severely curtail the practice of negative option marketing in areas of federal jurisdiction.

Negative option billing happens when companies we are already buying a service from unilaterally change the terms of our agreement with them. In effect, they start to sell us something more or something different on the assumption that if we did not want it, we would have told them so.

The cable companies learned the hard way a few years back that Canadians do not appreciate this. Most people are busy and have better things to do with their time than to pour over the fine print of every piece of junk mail that comes through the slot. We in the NDP believe they should not have to pour over that fine print. The NDP government in British Columbia moved to curb this practice after that cable fiasco in 1995. I note that the Government of Quebec has put similar legislation into effect.

We are talking today about a proposed amendment by the Bloc Quebecois which would carve out Quebec from the applications of the current bill. The Bloc believes that the regulation of commerce is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction and that businesses falling under federal jurisdiction in Quebec currently observe and comply with the Quebec law on this matter.

We have two issues here, one factual and one political, although they run together. First, let us talk about the factual.

Evidence presented by the Quebec consumer groups at the committee hearings suggested that this was not an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the Action Réseau Consommateur reiterated just yesterday in an e-mail sent to all members of parliament just how necessary it believes this bill to be in the province of Quebec.

The other issue is political and it is one on which I am afraid we in the NDP cannot agree with our colleagues in the Bloc. The federal government does have the right to regulate industries falling within its areas of jurisdiction. Once it does, the same rules must apply all across the country.

The bill before us today moves farther than the member's first attempt to respond to negative option billing by the cable companies back in 1995. At that time he sought to amend the Broadcasting Act to prevent cable distributors from repeating such business practices in the future.

While that bill enjoyed the support of the House in all three stages, it then moved on to the Senate where it got bogged down in a series of complex legal and cultural arguments. It died on the order paper when the election was called in 1997.

The current version of this bill extends its application to other industries under federal jurisdiction. I am talking here notably about the banks and telephone companies, as well as the holders of so-called broadcast distribution undertakings, that is to say the cable companies. The member broadens this definition by amending the Competition Act instead of the Broadcasting Act.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton presented numerous examples at committee of how the banks and telephone companies have used negative option marketing. They have done so in much the same way that the cable companies did back in 1995 when they started charging everyone for cable channels if they were not cancelled within 30 days.

I remember when this happened to me. I called the cable company to tell it that I did not want the service. It told me that I would obviously keep the service because I needed it. As I recall, I was treated as if I were unintelligent because I was not going to take all of the television channels. I assured the company that I had enough television channels and that I could not understand why it was pursuing this negative option plan. I felt it was unfair to me and to other consumers.

As we know, there was a great deal of outrage among consumers at the time about the negative option being practised by the cable companies. That was the reason the hon. member brought forward his bill at that time.

The banks, the telephone companies and the cable companies, which we are now talking about, are among the largest companies in Canada. Although they have recently been opened up to competition in varying ways, they have all had a substantial head start over their competitors, thanks to an assured place in the market in the past.

Historically in Canada, because we needed to provide telephone service, banking and entertainment in a diverse country, we chose the route of giving a few large Canadian companies the right to develop and sell services without foreign competition. This was a social contract. In return, they promised to be fair to consumers and accountable to government regulators.

Although there was clearly some difference in how this principle was translated into the different methods of regulating the three industries under discussion today, I believe that it fairly characterizes the philosophical approach that was adopted.

Today technology is changing our economy and our society in many ways. These changes should offer the promise of allowing consumers more choice and more control over the services they buy from banks, telephone companies and cable companies. These technological changes make the provision of legislation such as this even more necessary, just as it makes it more possible for the companies to provide us with more choice.

Companies will no longer be able to argue that it is too expensive to write three letters to every consumer or to obtain consent prior to every transaction. In fact, they are going to find that they may lose business unless they accord us this respect.

What is important for legislators to keep in focus and in balance during these changing times are three principles. First, we must ensure that services and infrastructure are available to all our citizens in this large and geographically diverse country.

Second, we must promote Canadian providers of these services wherever possible.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must put the interests of consumers, both their short term and long term interests, at the centre of our efforts.

I believe the hon. member's bill takes an important step in these directions and follows these principles. I am pleased to support his bill for that reason.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, now for a question from a party that really does care about the environment.

Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the health risks associated with exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment, especially when it comes to our children.

In the last throne speech, the government promised to take action on environmental health issues, and that included modernizing and protecting against health risks presented by pesticides.

When will the health minister keep his government's throne speech promise and introduce legislation to modernize and improve the Pest Control Products Act?

[The Environment, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when the free trade agreement was being negotiated with the United States and Mexico, Canadians worried that we were on the way to weaker environmental laws and lax enforcement. Senior American officials now confirm that the Canadian government is trying to undermine guidelines that allow whistleblowing citizens to take complaints to the centre for environmental co-operation.

The minister's officials will meet with the other two countries this week and he will meet with his counterparts in June. Will the minister promise that he does not support and will not allow changes to guidelines governing citizen's submissions to the centre for environmental co-operation?