Charles Caccia

[Intoxication of Migratory Birds, June 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to follow the member for Yorkton--Melville in the debate because it is a fantastic opportunity for a rebuttal on almost every point he made in his intervention.

One wonders in listening to the member for Yorkton--Melville whether he has thought about the reasons that lead has been banned from gasoline, from toys and from batteries. Evidently the member's historical recollection is not long, otherwise he would know that lead was even banned in Roman times because of the knowledge that lead is a poisonous substance.

For the member for Yorkton--Melville to say that the motion is ill-conceived is hilarious to say the least. It is a demonstration of backward thinking of the kind I have not heard in a long time.

The science is lacking according to the member for Yorkton--Melville. One only has to speak to accredited scientists at any university, to chemists, to people in the field of the science related to botany and related subjects in nature, to environmentalists. They say there is a substantial problem in nature caused by lead objects created by man, which when ingested by birds or other animals cause serious disease and poisoning that leads eventually to death.

For the member for Yorkton--Melville to say that we need a communications effort, as he did, and that we need a voluntary approach and further consultations with stakeholders really ignores the reality of the issue. He is proposing a recipe for inaction. If we were to do all the things that he proposed in his intervention today, we could be here for another 10 or 15 years.

Why does the member for Yorkton--Melville think that the use of lead sinkers by fishers are now banned in national parks? That happened in 1997. The environment committee wrote a report in 1995 on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in which it examined the issue of lead sinkers and in which it recommended their phaseout. Two years later, to her credit, the then Minister of the Environment banned their use in national parks. Why was that done? Certainly it was not because of incomplete science and not because it would cause, as the member said, the loss of thousands of jobs in Quebec. It is utterly ridiculous to say that.

It brings back to my memory the very same arguments that were made in the early 1980s when the issue before us was the removal of lead from gasoline. The same argument was made that it could not be done because thousands of jobs would be lost, that the refineries would have insurmountable costs and that there was not enough scientific proof that lead was dangerous and harmful.

There are piles of studies related to the fact that lead causes an impairment to a child's ability to learn. This has been established in communities near factories producing lead batteries in Toronto and Montreal. It is in any major centre where there has been a lead battery factory.

Has the member for Yorkton--Melville ever visited a facility that produced lead batteries? Is he aware of the studies before he would call for further ones? He said there is too little of it and therefore we need better communications and better consultation with stakeholders. This is trying to turn the clock back a hundred years.

What we should be doing is applauding the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert for this motion. This is very timely and long overdue for all the reasons that one can bring forward.

We had the benefit in recent months of a witness before the environment committee in the person of Dr. Vernon Thomas from Guelph University who studied the subject for years. He is an international expert who has devoted virtually his life to the link between the presence of lead in nature and its effect on species. He has come to the same conclusions that the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert has, namely that these items should no longer be used because the swallowing of lead intoxicates migratory birds. It intoxicates any living being that eventually ingests this type of toxic substance.

Dr. Thomas has produced a number of extremely interesting and substantive studies indicating that it is desirable to phase out the presence of lead and to gradually reduce it because the technology is there, and replace it with other substances which are a little bit more costly. There is no doubt about that. However the cost of non-lead fishing sinkers, for instance, would add something like $4.00 or $5.00 per individual amateur fisherman, which is a small amount considering the totality of the cost of the equipment which a fisherman uses when sport fishing. It would be a modest increase per se and affordable.

As the trend would increase in shifting away from lead to metals like tungsten then the mass production would permit a lowering of the cost of the new product. In the same way, the only mild observation that one can make about the motion before us is that it stops with fishing weights and baits and it does not include shots and pellets. They should be included in this overall discussion because they should also be banned.

The use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting was banned or announced as a possible policy by Environment Canada in 1999, so we already have an initiative that has been announced. It only needs to be implemented. Unfortunately none of the provinces have undertaken a similar action within their jurisdiction unless it has been done in the province of Quebec. I defer here to my learned colleague from Quebec who is a member of the environment committee. That is probably only a matter of time. Here is a situation where the provinces could take the lead with the federal government.

The ideal step would be to ban lead fishing weights and lead shot Canada wide so that we would put to rest this notion that we need more studies, consultations and involvement of stakeholders on a matter that has been studied to death.

[Canadian Flag, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his immediate response and for being so efficient in making things happen on the same day that this matter would be raised in the House. If I understood him correctly, the federal contribution for cleanups will be $40 million and the Ontario contribution will be $15 million, for a total of $55 million.

Perhaps it would be appropriate at this stage for me to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he could indicate the duration of this agreement. Over what period of time is the allocation of funds to be distributed? Is it a one year agreement, a two year agreement or longer? Has there been any interruption in the implementation of this plan?

[Canadian Flag, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when the Canada-Ontario Great Lakes agreement was signed in 1994, Canada and Ontario were to share responsibility on the Canadian side to restore, protect and sustain the world's largest freshwater ecosystem, namely the Great Lakes Basin.

Working together the governments were first, to continue jointly to restore degraded areas as identified by the International Joint Commission. One must say that according to a 1999 progress report by Environment Canada, only 60% of the actions necessary to restore the areas of concern has been implemented.

Second, the governments were also to prevent and control pollution with an emphasis on the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances and a significant reduction of other pollutants. The same 1999 Environment Canada progress report stated that considerable progress had been made in reducing toxins within the Great Lakes but the report did not quantify in percentage terms the achievements made.

Finally the governments were to conserve and protect human and ecosystem health, including people, wildlife, land, air and water. The same 1999 progress report stated:

Considerable advances have been made toward achieving targets related to the conservation of habitat, the protection of ecologically valuable lands, and the management of land and water.

However the specifics of the progress are vague and the report calls for the development of new policies and science.

In July 2000, the 1994 Canada-Ontario agreement lapsed. It is worth noting that a recent report by a non-government organization located in southwestern Ontario called Great Lakes United commented that “decisions are made without takinginto account the cumulative and long term impact” of industrial and agricultural activities on the Great Lakes Basin.

In view of the fact that the Canada-Ontario agreement is meant to tackle these problems, a new agreement is needed. After lengthy negotiations, the 2001 Canada-Ontario agreement was signed in March of this year, yet the details have not been made public.

Considering the importance of this freshwater ecosystem, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment or her representative inform the public and the House as to: first the objectives and details of the new agreement; second, the allocation of funds from both the provincial and federal governments; third, whether we can expect the new agreement to continue to build upon the objectives of the 1994 agreement; and finally the duration of the new agreement?

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have more fearmongering from the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands who prefers to make speeches in place of reading the bill. If he has read the rather lengthy section on compensation, I invite him in his reply to indicate to the House the number of that lengthy section, unless he wants to get some help from his colleagues. However I have the profound impression from his intervention that he has not read the section in question and therefore he again has repeated the mistake of other interveners in this debate, namely, saying outright that there is no compensation in the bill. That is wrong and incorrect.

I would like to indicate to the hon. member that he is a little late when he makes suggestions at third reading. His speech could have been quite helpful at second reading when the bill was sent to committee. However at third reading suggestions are too late. The procedure is completed. I do not think that it is helpful to have interventions that are creating this kind of unwarranted fear by members who do not read the bill before making their speeches.

I would very much welcome the comments of the hon. member.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey Central is setting a bad example of fearmongering that must be dealt with.

First of all, he was not a member of the committee and he has not participated in the work of the committee, but he comes to third reading and makes assertions about the effect of the bill which are not substantiated, I would submit, by reality. The member concluded his remarks by saying that the bill will create uncertainty, resentment and distrust. What the bill is attempting to achieve is if anything exactly the opposite.

If the member were to take the trouble to read the legislation that is coming through, he would see how much attention this legislation actually pays to the concept of co-operation with the sectors involved and co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments. The bill is peppered with recommendations and sections that take into account the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments.

The bill sets out a number of steps that are required in order to rebuild the species that are in danger to the point of being extirpated.

The bill establishes mandatory habitat only on federal land.

On compensation, I am glad that the member for Surrey Central has taken into account the fact that the words fair and reasonable compensation are in the bill. I would like him to take into account the fact, as corroborated this morning by the Minister of the Environment, that the compensation process is one that will take into account individuals affected, case by case. These are his own words.

Therefore, it seems to me that if the official opposition wants to play a responsible role in the House it should do so by criticizing the bill on substance where it sees fit to do so, but it should also recognize the positive features of the bill. Does the hon. member for Surrey Central not agree that this is actually the role of the opposition?

[Forest Industry, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, according to National Geographic magazine Alberta's forest management is a prime example of the deleterious effects of oil, gas and forestry activities.

A University of Alberta study demonstrates the negative impact on forests and wildlife of some half a million miles of roads, pipelines and 15-foot corridors for testing for oil and gas deposits. Yet in a publication entitled “Are Canada's Forest Shrinking?” the Forest Products Association of Canada claims that Canada's forests are increasing and on a sustainable path. However forest inventories are compiled by the provinces and industry, with inconsistent definitions and unverified data possibly leading to overestimates and incorrect forecasts.

If we are to ensure the sustainability of our forests, rather than catchy slogans and empty declarations by industry we need a national forest strategy with reliable inventories, reliable annual growth estimates and verifiable annual cut data.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that this amount may well have to be revisited. Maybe the day will come when the official opposition will urge the government to increase its budget in certain sectors, including this one. We will certainly applaud that pressing on the part of the official opposition.

However, the main point is this. A farmer or a woodlot owner who would have to suspend certain farming or harvesting activities in order to protect a species at risk by not cutting a woodlot or by not cutting hay during certain seasons should be, and I hope will be, fully entitled to a compensation that is fair and reasonable in order to help.

As the member for Peace River indicated earlier, this is a burden that ought to be distributed evenly across the country amongst all Canadians.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the member for Kootenay--Columbia for his question because it allows for elucidation. First, the clause he refers to is on the question of writing regulations, not making compensation. What happened in committee was this. The language was permissive and the committee majority, with the participation of Alliance members, changed the word “may” to “shall”. We thought that was a tremendous improvement. It relates to the writing of regulations, so that the committee directed the minister to write regulations on compensation, so it was no longer permissive. It became mandatory.

When the bill was reported to the House there was Motion No. 109, I believe. That motion reversed the language as to how it was written when the bill was sent by the House to the committee after second reading. Then there was the very vigorous intervention, to which the parliamentary secretary alluded earlier, by the rural committee and I suppose by the members of the Liberal rural caucus, I should say. I am sure their representations were made. There were at least 40 Alliance speakers who at report stage talked about this topic as well. Having heard from virtually the entire House, the government wisely decided to revert to the change made in committee by making the writing of regulations mandatory, not permissive.

I hope that I have clarified this item for the member for Kootenay—Columbia, for whom I have the highest respect and whose speech yesterday certainly contributed to the evolution of thought in the House.

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me jump into the subject matter very quickly because of limited time and say that there are certain lessons we could learn from the study of Bill C-5. I will try to do that in the short time available, as well as comment on some of the interventions this afternoon.

The first lesson we learned was that as a general rule, listening to interested Canadians, to knowledgeable people, to witnesses, to people who care, definitely leads to better legislation when there is a will to modify any bill presented to parliament. There is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained by an all party committee of parliamentarians conducting a thorough review of any proposed legislation.

The department proposing the legislation is not infallible. The Department of Justice is not infallible. Neither is cabinet nor privy council. The input of citizens and the thus acquired knowledge is most valuable when examining indepth a proposed bill and how it would work in practice. Neither cabinet nor the minister proposing the legislation has the time to carry out such a task in detail. That is a fact of parliamentary life.

The next lesson we learned was that amendments made in committee have value, particularly when members of the government and opposition parties get together and agree on improvements. Take these two examples. The committee made a change regarding the representation of aboriginal peoples and made a change so that the writing of regulations on compensation would be mandatory. At report stage the government reversed these changes, only to discover that it made a serious political mistake.

We come now to recent changes made possible by the Prime Minister's support. The scientific listing is one of them and the mandatory protection of habitat on federal lands is the other.

On the first change, a provision was made whereby once the scientific community proposes future additions to the list of endangered species, cabinet has nine months to reject them and must give reasons. If no action is taken by cabinet during the nine months, the list automatically becomes official. Thus the accountability of elected representatives is retained but within a limited period of time and the independent role of scientists is thus given greater significance.

Regarding mandatory habitat protection, it must be said that when Bill C-5 was sent to committee for study, mandatory habitat protection was not in the bill. Some 1,300 scientists, including 113 fellows of the Royal Society of Canada, wrote to the Prime Minister urging the inclusion of mandatory habitat protection. The government listened and now the bill includes mandatory protection on federal lands.

Both amendments are vast improvements to the bill and the Prime Minister together with the member for York North deserve the credit. These improvements were made possible by the government's willingness to be flexible. Thus the integrity and the value of the committee process has been considerably restored.

Here are some more lessons. In hearing witnesses we also discovered that we actually were dealing more with human interests than with endangered species. Yes, the title of the bill addresses endangered species and their protection, but the content of the bill is a different story. We had to pay attention to economic interests, be they fisheries, farming, forestry or cattle, in other words, people. While representatives of certain economic sectors declared that they were in favour of protecting species at risk, they became defensive of their economic interests and asked for the removal of clauses of the bill which may interfere with their economic activities.

Socioeconomic considerations for instance emerged in discussions. Economic interests became the centre of discussions and in effect took precedence over the protection of endangered species, no matter how seriously in danger the species might be.

We also became aware of another factor. We had to take into account the absurdity, from the standpoint of endangered species of course, of political boundaries and federal-provincial relations. The logic that the survival of a bird could be jeopardized in a province with weak legislation but that the same bird could be safe if it landed in a tree located on federal land is simply bizarre.

The committee's awareness was sharpened by the knowledge of the very poor performance of provincial governments in protecting endangered species so far, with the exception of Nova Scotia. Giving priority to federal-provincial relations in the protection of endangered species would be acceptable if the federal legislation were at the same time mirrored by provincial legislation and if, until it were mirrored, federal legislation would apply on provincial land.

However, we had to settle for a different approach, under the leadership of the member for York North, and we pressed for the welcome amendments which ensure mandatory habitat protection on federal lands. Without mandatory protection on federal lands the federal government would have no moral authority in urging and expecting provincial and territorial governments to pass habitat protection legislation that would also be mandatory. It is our hope that this is the way it will work.

I listened to the debate this morning. I must say that the member for Windsor--St. Clair developed his analysis of the bill in the debate this morning and I listened very carefully, as I always do when he speaks. I would like to thank him for his contribution in committee and would like to give him, as well as the members of the House who have expressed their concerns, the assurance that the bill as amended last night does cover mandatory habitat protection of migratory birds on federal lands. It does not do that on provincial lands out of respect for provincial jurisdiction, but at least it does so on federal lands so as to set a good example for the provincial and territorial governments.

Turning now to the official opposition, I regret very much having to say that the member for Red Deer was wrong yesterday and was wrong again this morning. Yesterday he claimed there is no compensation. I will quote what he said on page 12385 of Hansard :

Under the current bill there would not be compensation or fair market value. It does not even contain the term fair and reasonable--

I invite the member and his colleagues on the opposition side to read clause 64 of the bill in which the words “fair and reasonable” are to be read in the legislation. Therefore, the concept of compensation is there in its fullest legislative commitment. It is there to be read. It is there to be seen.

Today the member for Red Deer claimed that Bill C-5 is patterned on U.S. legislation. He was wrong again. If anything, the bill is not patterned on U.S. legislation and that was actually the clear intent when it was launched from the very beginning.

Again today we heard the member for Red Deer claim that Bill C-5 lacks flexibility. He is wrong again. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility built in. There is actually too much. The member for York North even made a reference to the fact. It is of some concern to us there is too much flexibility, but definitely that item has been taken into account.

The member for Red Deer also made the statement this morning that Bill C-5 intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. I must say that this is also wrong. If there is anything the bill achieves, it is the very clear concern and respect for provincial jurisdiction, except in one particular instance in a clause that has to be invoked in the case of a very serious emergency.

I would hope that future speakers for the Alliance will restore the credibility of the official opposition on Bill C-5 in light of the statement by the member for Red Deer. To that I should add, because compensation seems to be the centre of considerable attention, that a stewardship fund has been allocated. The concept of stewardship embraces compensation and $180 million has been allocated to stewardship. Some $45 million has already been included in the current fiscal budget and $10 million has been put into place to work toward stewardship, which includes compensation.

This morning the minister himself said in his intervention that we are working on general compensation regulations. He said that regulations will set out the procedures for compensation claims. I am asking the members of the opposition to listen carefully. Finally, he said that we will address claims on a case by case basis. Is that not sufficient evidence of the commitment of the government to compensation?

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to discuss a few of the points being made this afternoon, beginning right away with the very spirited and passionate intervention by the member for Souris--Moose Mountain. The member for Souris--Moose Mountain has done a terrific job this afternoon because he has in a very clear and lucid manner described step by step exactly what this bill is all about as it is written now.

I am glad that he made this point because certainly what this bill is doing is rejecting the U.S. approach, no matter how often members opposite claim that the approach of Bill C-5 can be compared to that of the American approach. It definitely is not. It has been written on the basis of the principles outlined by the member for Souris--Moose Mountain, namely, co-operation first not confrontation.

I can assure everyone that this is how the bill is written and anyone who wishes can see how it would work with action plans, consultations, planning and a sequence of events which leaves the confrontational aspect as the very last resort to be invoked when everything else fails. I can assure the House about that because we have lived with this bill, as the member for Souris--Moose Mountain knows, for quite some time. In that respect I am in a way grateful because his impassioned intervention has really helped to make it quite clear what this bill is all about. He has done it better than I could have.

The second point has to do with the very thoughtful intervention by the member for Windsor--St. Clair. In his intervention he invoked the necessity of the need for flexibility. He spoke about the carrot and the stick. Again we see a different approach because the member for Windsor--St. Clair wants a balance between the two. Whereas the member for Souris--Moose Mountain wants co-operation first rather than confrontation.

The bill itself invokes the stick as a last resort measure. It is a sequence of steps that shows there is a desire to be flexible, to avoid the experience south of the border and to develop the highest degree and level of co-operation that can be achieved with civil society. Of course time will tell whether that is the right approach. We now have to give this approach a chance to see how it works. Of course legislation can always be improved in a second phase.

That leads me to the various rather passionate interventions this afternoon on compensation. I have the impression that the researchers on the side of the Alliance perhaps have not done as good a job as they could have. The member for Skeena, if I understood him correctly, as well as the member for Kelowna did recognize, unlike the member for Red Deer, that compensation was written into the bill. It is no longer permissive. It is a must.

Not only that but the writing of the bill is now mandatory and also the words “fair and reasonable compensation” are in subclause 64(1). Some members opposite have made the point that instead of “fair and reasonable” they would rather have “fair market value”. That, of course, can be discussed. I would argue that fair and reasonable can be as good as fair market value at times of market depressions. It could actually help and be useful as a concept or a guideline to the affected farmer or woodlot owner rather than fair market value.

Of course that is a debate for economists and we do not want to invest too much time in that. There is one opinion for every economist in this respect.

The fact is that on page 36 of the bill it states:

The Minister may...provide fair and reasonable compensation--

It then sets out the procedure, the methods and the terms and conditions for the provision of compensation, but not in detail. Some members of the opposition would like to have the regulations written into the act but that would be absurd. The regulations are called regulations because they are not law. The law sets the parameters for the regulations. The regulations then are written to implement the law. It is then the task of a parliamentary committee to see to it that the regulations are in conformity with the law. To expect that the law would define every detail of the regulation would be absurd. A committee of parliament would be sitting for years before it could report the bill back to the House. Let us be practical here, for Heaven's sake. The official opposition party actually claims to be one of the most practical parties in the world so let it live up to that reputation.

I would be remiss if I did not make a reference to the speech by the member for Fundy--Royal. He made a fair intervention but we must correct one impression that he left in the House about migratory birds. Migratory birds have not been forgotten. Migratory birds and their habitat have been included in the bill. The protection of the habitat for migratory birds is now mandatory on federal land.

Some people will ask why we left out the provinces. The official opposition would be screaming if we were to impose it on the provinces.

It seems to me that not many in the House would have a strong argument to blame the government for having limited its mandatory provision for migratory birds only to federal land, of course in the hope that the provinces will adopt mirror legislation and adopt the same approaches on provincial land.

Let us hope that in a few years when the bill will be debated again, birds which have the unfortunate experience of landing on a provincial stone will not be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis birds which land on a federal stone, but that the provinces will in good faith adopt the approach of the federal government, adopt mirror legislation so that we have an approach to the protection of endangered species that is not hampered by political boundaries.

To conclude, it would be remiss on my part not to indicate to the House that the Prime Minister has taken an interest in the bill. The result has been that vast improvements to the legislation have taken place on the subject of mandatory habitat protection on federal land and also on the dimension of the scientific list. That could then be the subject when we go into third reading because these are items that are not covered by this particular group of motions.

Let me tell members that the bill has been vastly improved. It has certain features that are highly welcome. On the theme of compensation, I would urge members of the opposition to carefully read section 64(1) and to become fully aware of what it contains rather than listening to hearsay or hastily prepared papers as apparently was the case this morning with the member for Red Deer who launched into a criticism of the bill, which actually his own members corrected, for which we were extremely grateful.