Charles Caccia

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the parliamentary secretary for his reply.

I draw to his attention the fact that what is happening in the three particular cases which I outlined tonight is not due to misinterpretation. It is part of an overall pattern of the use of chapter 11 which we are told was not originally intended, but nevertheless has become a practice. Therefore it is well beyond the realm of misinterpretation.

I am glad to hear from the parliamentary secretary that the minister is fully committed not only to transparency, but also to an initiative that would ensure, if I understood him correctly, that an interpretive statement on the scope of article 1110 on expropriation might be adopted this year at the meeting of the free trade commissioners.

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the NAFTA agreement attempts by government to impose restrictions on corporations to protect the environment, to preserve natural resources, to defend public health, to ensure labour rights or protect culture can now be challenged as a trade barrier. When governments attempt to impose restrictions they can find themselves subject to expensive legal challenges from corporations.

Take the case of Guadalcazar, a town located in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi. A NAFTA tribunal found that Mexico violated NAFTA's chapter 11 investor provisions by not allowing California based Metalclad to open a hazardous waste treatment and disposal site. The tribunal ordered the Mexican government to pay $16.7 million to Metalclad.

The decision was appealed by the government of Mexico but in upholding the NAFTA tribunal's decision the judge pointed out that the language in NAFTA was so broad that the government's action amounted to a violation of the company's rights. Even when the government acts in the public interest, as it did in Mexico, and follows legitimate procedures but interferes with corporate profit making, it can be forced under NAFTA to pay millions of dollars in damages to corporations. Therefore the government of Mexico had to pay Metalclad $16.7 million.

In 1998 the Government of Canada caved in to corporate pressure under NAFTA. Ethyl Corporation, the producer of a fuel additive, MMT, filed a $350 million NAFTA lawsuit against Canada. Our government banned this product by an act of parliament in 1996 because MMT was deemed a hazard to human health. However, anxious about losing in court, Ottawa settled out of court and paid Ethyl $19 million. It also issued a statement denying that MMT was a health hazard.

In the United States of America we now have the yet unresolved issue of California's ban on the additive MTBE, produced by a Canadian company called Methanex. It is basing its NAFTA lawsuit on the notion that it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that MTBE causes cancer in humans, only in rats and mice.

These three cases permit us to note that: first, corporations have more success at NAFTA tribunals than in domestic courts when opposing environmental and health regulations; second, NAFTA tribunals reject the precautionary approach and promote investment and trade above all; third, acting under NAFTA corporations can pressure foreign governments in the expectation they will back off; and finally, NAFTA tribunals can and effectively do overturn laws passed by democratically elected legislatures.

NAFTA tribunals are not open to the public and conduct their proceedings in secret. One of the many problems with NAFTA is that it grants investors a powerful new set of rights in their business dealings abroad, but assigns no new responsibilities. As a result, NAFTA increases the powers of corporations and diminishes the power of governments.

It is therefore most alarming and distressing to see democratically elected governments become less relevant and lose power to corporations. Signing international trade agreements should not lead to a reduction of the state role in protecting the public good.

In essence, what NAFTA does is it allows corporations to make profits which corporations would not be able to make under national laws. In addition, NAFTA allows a perverse reversal of democratically adopted rules by a non-democratically chosen tribunal acting in secrecy.

For these reasons I am asking the parliamentary secretary the following questions. Is the Government of Canada proposing an interpretive statement of the scope of article 1110 on expropriation for adoption at this year's meeting of the free trade commission? Is corrective language being proposed to deal with the thorny issue of investor rights in chapter 11? Will the commission on environmental co-operation in Montreal be assigned the task of resolving this deeply disturbing issue?

[Occupational Health and Safety, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we remembered the 10th anniversary of the Westray mining tragedy and the loss of so many lives.

Allen Martin, whose brother died in the blast, was reported as saying “workers still have little control over the safety of their workplaces.”

This past week, MPs have been asked by former Westray miners and members of the steelworkers union to make corporate executives and directors accountable for unsafe working conditions. The call for corporate accountability was first made in 1997 as one of the recommendations of a public inquiry.

It has been 10 years since the Westray mine disaster and 5 years since the inquiry's recommendations. It is time for the government to proceed and amend the criminal code. Every possible preventive measure is most desirable so that the death of miners not be repeated.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is reflecting on the behaviour of members on this side of the House which I do not think is in compliance with the rules of the House. I also bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that members on this side of the House can only speak once and many of us have done so.

[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on April 17 we will celebrate the 20th birthday of the charter of rights and freedoms. The Globe and Mail reports that since coming into force the charter has had a profound effect on Canadian lives and ranks as former Prime Minister Trudeau's greatest legacy.

A public opinion survey shows the charter is popular in all parts of Canada including Quebec, and with all age groups. The charter protects individuals as well as groups of citizens. Former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer said it is there to protect the innocent. Groups such as aboriginals have benefited in many ways. In addition, governments now have to respect charter rights when they write legislation as in the case of the Anti-terrorism Act.

The charter is an evolving document described by Justice Iacobucci as a work in progress. As such, the charter will be useful as we write new laws regulating new technologies and the human condition.

[Pest Control Products Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in pointing at the government of Quebec as having introduced legislation which across the board empowers municipalities to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. In addition to that, some municipalities in other provinces have done so. They were challenged in the supreme court which ruled in their favour.

However, the main point is this. We did recommend in committee that the federal government could phase-out pesticides that were put on the market for cosmetic purposes alone. We set a time limit of five years. I believe the hon. member from Lachine did the same. It would gradually be phased-out as a decision of the federal government, which is responsible for the registration of products. To decide what enters the market and what does not is fully a federal responsibility. Failing that, then we would have to rely on the goodwill of the provinces or the political will of the municipalities to do it on their own.

As to the final suggestion that a public education program could achieve that purpose, that is a very good idea. However let me draw to the attention of the member the fact that the producers of cosmetic pesticides are very engaged in advertising campaigns themselves which show beautifully uniform green-bladed lawns, happily frolicking pets and the like. Therefore the competition for public attention would be very intense.

[Pest Control Products Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the Minister of Health for her speech yesterday and particularly for what she said at the outset:

--the purpose of federal pest management regulation is to protect Canadians and their environment from the risks associated with pesticides.

She went on to say:

The proposed new PCPA would ensure Canada's children and other vulnerable populations were given special protection from the health risks posed by pesticides. It would do so by enshrining in legislation the requirement to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts--

She also said:

It is important to keep in mind why we regulate pesticides. We do so for a variety of reasons including the following: Some pesticides may pose risks to people and the environment; many pesticides are released into the environment; our exposure to many pesticides is involuntary; and redressing harm from pesticide exposure is generally difficult.

Human exposure can occur when pesticides such as those used in agriculture, forestry, lawn and garden care, and on golf courses are released into the environment where people may be exposed to them involuntarily. In addition, since pesticides are often applied to crops and livestock we may be exposed to their residues involuntarily through the food we eat.

It would be an understatement to say that the bill is long overdue. It amends legislation passed in 1969. It is therefore highly welcome, badly needed and most appreciated by anyone concerned with public health as affected by pesticides.

Before going into the pros and cons of the bill, it would seem desirable to say a couple of words about its title. The official title of the bill is “an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests”. However, the short title of the bill is same as the title of the legislation it is supposed to replace, namely “pest control products act”.

It would seem to me that to continue with the use of the old term, pest control products act, would mean adopting an industry oriented title, not a publicly oriented one as the full title conveys. If the intent of the bill is truly to protect human health and welfare, then this contradiction in titles should be corrected.

An appropriate short title might read “an act on the use of pesticides” or “an act on dangerous substances used to control pests” or simply, “the pesticides licensing act”. Instead, what is being proposed is a short title with a focus on pest control products and as such, it sounds pretty good to consumers. After all, who could be against the control of pests? To conclude, the long title is good, but the short title leaves much to be desired.

Bill C-53 has been in the making for some time. In its report on pesticides, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made many recommendations, some of which appear to have gone unnoticed. I will mention some shortly but first I have a few words on the new and positive features of the bill before us today.

First, human health and the environment, as other members have commented before me, are now leading principles of the proposed legislation.

Second, in evaluating the health and environmental risks of pesticides, the minister must now apply appropriate margins of safety for pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors and must apply a margin of safety 10 times greater than now if a product is to be used around homes or schools.

Third, in determining maximum residue limits in foods, the law will require the use of an additional safety factor of 10 in determining the tolerance of pesticide residue in foodstuffs.

It will require the application of appropriate margins of safety for pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors. It will require the implementation of government policy as defined in the toxic substances management policy, which I am told does include track one toxic substances under CEPA. Finally, it will require the application of such government policy through sections 7(8) and 19(3).

Fourth, pest control products must now meet the requirements of the workplace hazardous materials information system. This insertion is in answer to many interventions, including the one by the member for Ottawa West when we were in committee.

Fifth, there is a very narrow application of the precautionary principle. For instance, the minister may cancel or amend the registration of a pest control product if, in the course of a re-evaluation or a special review, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the cancellation or amendment is necessary to deal with a situation that endangers human health or safety or the environment.

Sixth, as to the re-evaluation of existing pesticides, with this bill all pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years, which is not as good as the recommendation made in committee which suggested that by the year 2006, if I remember correctly. The term in the special review will be mandatory for any pesticide banned or restricted by an OECD country, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris.

These positive features tell us that the government recognizes the fact that pesticides, euphemistically called pest control products, are highly dangerous substances which should be used rarely and with extreme care. Otherwise how could one explain the symbol of the skull and crossbones used to identify most pesticides, softened in its impact by the intensive advertising campaign by pesticide manufacturers who find it necessary to try to convince the public that everything is fine with pesticides? For instance, in the mollifying ads promoting lawn beautification the word pesticides never appears. What we are treated to are bucolic green lawns, happy children playing and pets frolicking in a sea of perfectly uniform green blades of grass.

It should also be noted that in its attempt to dominate the market, industry avoids the word pesticides and instead uses intriguing, scientific sounding formulas like 2,4-D or other fancy abbreviations intended to reassure the potential consumer of chemicals about using pesticides on his or her front yard lawn. Fortunately, municipalities have not been bamboozled by the pesticide industry's public relations campaign. Today over 30 municipalities have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides on private property and in some cases on public property.

All this is after prolonged and extensive legal battles which peaked last June when the Supreme Court of Canada hit the pesticide industry on the head and gave it a lesson in constitutional law. The court declared that yes, municipalities do have the power to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides and that yes, the public interest can and should be served by municipal governments.

Before leaving the subject, I would like to pay a warm tribute to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine for her bill on banning the cosmetic use of pesticides. The bill was unanimously adopted at the last national convention of the Liberal Party of Canada. Unfortunately, the cosmetic use of pesticides is not mentioned in Bill C-53, one of several shortcomings which of course could be corrected in committee by way of appropriate amendments.

There are other serious shortcomings in Bill C-53 which I would like to bring to the attention of the House.

There is no statutory mandate and responsibility given to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which makes it a rather unique feature in the government structure.

There is no inclusion of the substitution principle, therefore no requirement to deregister older pesticides once newer, safer products are registered and brought to market.

There is a very narrow application of the precautionary principle. Why is it applied only at the consultation or amendment stage of the registration of a pesticide and not right at the beginning of the process, namely when deciding whether to register it or not? That is the question. It would make enormous sense to apply the precautionary principle all the way through as it was already advocated yesterday, if I remember correctly, by the member for Rosemont--Petite--Patrie.

There is no definition of acceptable or unacceptable risk and that is also a very serious matter which needs to be brought to the attention of members.

There is no requirement to take into account aggregate and cumulative exposure when registering a product. Time and again witnesses at committee hearings brought this to our attention, particularly the Canadian Institute of Child Health and other organizations concerned with the health of children.

There is no room for independent scientific findings which could be followed by mandatory feedback. Let us be realistic. Only so much can be achieved through public consultations and comments on decisions. More needs to be done in the public interest.

There is the matter of what constitutes confidential business information and that matter remains the same in this bill as in the 1969 legislation. It seems to me that surely there are situations when the public good can be of greater importance than confidential business information, or am I living on another planet?

Another shortcoming is the fact that the bill focuses only on the active ingredients of a pesticide but not on ingredients that can pose a threat to human health and the environment and are not necessarily active.

Finally, and this may be a budgetary requirement and not necessarily a legislative one, there is a need also identified by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for better statistics on pesticides, be it their sales or other related data. There is indeed an important challenge here for Statistics Canada.

As others have already outlined, Bill C-53 is definitely an improvement over the 1969 legislation. It should however be stronger in ensuring a healthy and safe environment for Canadians. The bill relies too heavily on product, product management and product regulation, and too little on the reduction in the use of, the reliance on and the risks posed by pesticides. That in a nutshell would be my way of assessing the bill.

It is my sincere hope that colleagues on the health committee will be able to address these shortcomings and amend the bill, which is quite possible at the committee stage, as members present have experienced.

To conclude, it seems to me that the Canadian population can expect a law which will give full and unconditional precedence to human health and the environment over pesticides and the very powerful industrial interests behind them.

[Pest Control Products Act, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I inquire, with your permission, whether you would be inclined to see the clock at 6.50 p.m. so that we can resume the debate tomorrow?

[Pest Control Products Act, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, allow me briefly to ask the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair, whose judgment I highly respect, whether he has any comments to offer on the role of the agency in charge of this bill.

First, does the agency not find itself in a dual role, one of screening products and one of giving access to the market to the proponents of these products? Second, is it his opinion that the agency ought to be accountable to parliament by way of an annual report?

[Fisheries, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for St. John's West for bringing forward this item for discussion tonight. I have carefully read his letter and note that he is inclined to blame foreign overfishing in the Atlantic Canada region as the cause for the shortages of the resource.

I will try in the limited time available to put this discussion within the framework of sustainable development. It seems to me it is a classic item for discussion under the general heading of sustainable development.

It is interesting that in 2002 we are discussing something that is not new. This item has been raised in various reports over the last decade at least. It is an item about which not much new can really be said. It is interesting to note that while the member for St. John's West chooses foreign overfishing as the reason for this debate tonight, back in 1997 the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council already had expressed a major concern in its report. I will quote from the report:

A major concern is the management of fishing activities because some gear types are capable of making large catches in a short time irrespective of location, biological behaviour of the fish and season of the year.

The report goes on to say:

This translates into great concern about the excess capacity of the existing Canadian groundfish fleets and the constant improvements in efficiency of harvesting operations, in terms of how effective the operations are in finding fish and catching them.

Evidently the conservation council is not pointing at foreigners. It is pointing at ourselves. I wonder perhaps if it would not be more appropriate and fair to engage in a debate of this kind also with an analysis of our own performance in our own harvest of the resource.

Let me put on record a fact which is very well known to many of us here tonight. In the case of cod, in the 1970s and throughout the whole decade we were catching something like 650,000 tonnes a year. That level of 650,000 tonnes fell in the 1980s to something like 250,000 tonnes a year. In the 1980s the majority of the fleet was Canadian, unlike in the 1970s.

We can see from that comparison a jump from 650,000 tonnes down to 250,000 tonnes. That was a great indication that there was something wrong in the resource. The resource was not as abundant as in the previous decade.

Then all of a sudden by 1990-91 we saw a decline to 41,000 tonnes, if I remember correctly in 1991. In 1992 the moratorium was called and the cod fishery was suspended all of a sudden.

What is the point in blaming the foreign fishery if we ourselves are also part of the problem? It is an issue that we have to keep in mind. Over the centuries there has been the tendency vis-à-vis our natural resources for humans to take out more than the resources can offer. We find a similar pattern also in forests.

Sticking to the fishery, we can read the accounts of those who discovered North America four or five centuries ago. They wrote of an unbelievable abundance of fish. Apparently a person could almost catch fish by the tail, compared to what is happening today. This issue has to be examined and discussed over the decades and possibly over the centuries. Over time there has been a very serious and alarming decline.

I do not know whether it helps to get excited when there is a foreign boat overfishing because that is just a symptom of a much larger problem.

It is interesting to note that in the September 1996 fisheries and oceans department report there is an analysis of groundfish. It states at a certain point:

In the early 1990s the catches dropped rapidly. In 1995 it reached the lowest level recorded in recent decades.

We were already warned in September 1996 about this pattern.

Scientists all over the world from Iceland to Canada to the U.K. who have examined the behaviour of fisheries have been quite clear in their warnings about the necessity for producing measures of conservation, reducing fleets and suggesting that perhaps the fisheries should become community oriented rather than industry oriented so as to sustain villages rather than the large scale multinationals and so forth. We are unable somehow to put into practice the suggestions that are being given to us by those who are studying these patterns over a longer period of time.

I would like to bring to everyone's attention a study entitled “Beyond crisis in the fisheries: A prospective for community based ecological fisheries management” written by David Coon and Janice Harvey of the conservation council of New Brunswick. They attempted in 1997 to come forward with some policy recommendations in order to ensure sustainability, to reduce these devastatingly heavy harvest patterns. They suggested to shift the benefit of the resource away from the multinational activities on large scales and to bring the resource closer for the livelihood and survival of the local communities. They already said five years ago that we must undergo some radical changes in the way we treat this particular resource.

Another example is the April 1997 announcement by the then Minister of Natural Resources that the cod stock would be reopened in the famous 3P area, which everyone knows the location of, for a total allowable catch level of 10,000 tonnes. This is the very same area where we used to catch something like 60 times as much 20 years earlier. What is going on? Can we blame this on foreign fleets? Let us be realistic about this.

In tackling this particular issue, which is certainly not an easy one, it is important that we first, start from the premise of whether or not we can put into place a policy that will make the sustainability of the resource a priority over the long term. Second, whether we have reached the point of such low levels in the fishery that we must think of the livelihood of the survival of the community at the expense of large scale international operations which may be extremely productive and lucrative. Nevertheless, it takes out more from the ocean than the ocean can replenish.

There may be other policy suggestions which I hope will emerge in this debate. However for heaven's sake let us stop pointing the finger at foreign fleets. Let us stop the practice of gun boat diplomacy because it does not get us anywhere. It gets us into trouble over the long term with our potential allies who we want to bring around to our way of thinking, and I am talking now of the Europeans.

Let us use level-headed thinking about the method because the long term perspective that we have seen over the past two decades is the exploitation of the resource. We euphemistically call it harvesting but it is really taking out of the oceans.

We have taken out more than the resource can replenish and reproduce, and there is a deficit here. Somehow we are unable to deal with the deficit unless it comes to a moment of crisis, as it did with the moratorium on the cod fishery. The cod fishery is a classic lesson from which we must learn how to handle the other resources in the ocean if we are to prevent further sad experiences.