Charles Caccia

[Fisheries, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In 1981 the Government of Canada was among the first to sign the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. During the election in 1993 the Liberal Party made a commitment to ratify the convention.

When could Canadians expect the Government of Canada to ratify the United Nations convention on the law of the sea?

[Species at Risk Act, March 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, in this group of amendments a number of items need to be addressed.

The member for Red Deer did his job in condemning a certain approach. I would like to remind him that the mens rea issue was discussed at length and in depth at committee. The conclusion we arrived at after very careful and thoughtful deliberation was that there is a justification for that approach in certain extreme cases but not definitely in cases for which he understandably expressed some concern.

I would like to address an item in this group of motions that concerns aboriginal people. A motion was made in committee to facilitate and provide a broader basis for consultation with aboriginal people across the country. It was a matter that our colleague, the member for Churchill, espoused quite eloquently in committee. It resulted in an amendment that was made which we all thought was reasonable and desirable but which became the object of a motion by the government which in a sense in Group No. 4 unravels the consensus reached so carefully in committee.

I noticed with some sense of alarm the press release issued yesterday by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president. The changes made by the government at report stage are the object of the press release. The president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami said the changes--

--do not currently reflect the constitutionally protected relationship between Inuit and the federal government. More specifically, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami feels the federal government has undermined the integrity of the Species at Risk legislation through its report stage motions.

The Inuit Tapiriit president put his finger on an issue we also raised, namely the unfortunate intervention by the government by way of motions. They are undoing the careful work made by way of consensus, intensive negotiations, co-operation and initiatives taken in particular by the member for Red Deer and the member for Simcoe North and others, to arrive at an all party consensus which resulted in the report from our committee.

Coming back to yesterday's press release by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the last paragraph reads:

Due to these recent events, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, along with other Aboriginal groups, have no choice but to withdraw their support from the Species at Risk Act. ITK will only support Bill C-5 if the federal government reverts wording concerning NACOSAR [National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk] back to the Standing Committee version, or an honourable compromise can be reached between Aboriginal groups and the federal government.

I hope a solution can be found by way of an honourable compromise and by way of an amendment perhaps later on in this debate.

Too many of the motions, too many of the discrepancies and divergences of opinions that have been expressed during the debate rest on the federal-provincial accord arrived at in 1992 in Charlottetown. These were federal and provincial ministers who were responsible for wildlife and the environment.

What is the Charlottetown accord to which so much undue importance is attributed? It is simply a piece of paper. Those who signed it had no mandate by parliament or legislatures to do so. Since then they have had time to bring that accord back to their respective legislatures and parliament for a good discussion. They have not done so. It is a document that has no parliamentary foundation.

In addition there has been no public consultation on that accord. No parliamentary hearings have taken place. No debates in the House, or to the best of my knowledge in any legislature, have taken place on the Charlottetown accord.

What it has produced is very hard to measure. It is an understanding on loose concepts which has no real significance in the achievement of the goal, namely the protection of endangered species. It is a meaningless document which nevertheless is invoked frequently despite its insignificance.

I am bringing this into the discussion today because it seems to me that rather than being guided by the 1992 Charlottetown so-called accord which has no parliamentary or legislative basis at all, we should instead concentrate on the federal role, the federal responsibility for the protection of endangered species. We should give strong leadership because we have a constitutional base for the promotion of the protection of endangered species. Just with water alone and the species that move in water, we have a tremendous responsibility and constitutional mandate.

The federal government also has the moral authority to take a leadership role. Canadians and the public at large expect the federal government to take a leadership role. This is what should be guiding us in these deliberations.

Industries, specifically the mining industry and the forestry industry, and a number of environmental groups support the key changes the committee made to the bill regarding listing and habitat. This type of coalition is unprecedented. We must also keep in mind that 1,300 scientists have supported a strong bill and have said that the bill should go even further than it does in the protection of endangered species.

Never before have we seen such a broad industry-environment consensus on a major environmental bill. It is extremely unfortunate the government will not go as far as industry is willing to go in the protection of endangered species.

[Species at Risk Act, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to the hon. member, while it is extremely interesting to hear what a former colleague proposed with respect to a bill I draw attention to the fact that we are dealing with a group of motions.

The hon. member may want to address the substance of the group of motions before us rather than the substance of a private member's bill proposed by a previous member of the House.

[The Environment, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, ratifying the Kyoto protocol will result in energy efficiency, innovation and conservation to Canada's great economic advantage. Rather than talking about the cost of ratifying Kyoto we should act because of the increasing cost of inaction.

Current temperature levels several degrees above normal accompanied by floods and ice storms are causing economic damage to many sectors including the shipping, insurance and tourism industries.

In addition, farmers and ranchers face severe economic damage because of droughts. Droughts also lead to more frequent forest fires. Thus, the cost of inaction is overtaking the cost of ratifying Kyoto. Industry Canada reports that $7 billion in economic activities can be generated by the ratification of Kyoto. By contrast, the projections made by the petroleum association, Esso, the BCNI and the chamber of commerce are wrong and misleading.

The benefits from energy efficiency and innovation are enormous. Let us catch up with the technological progress and the economic opportunities before the cost of inaction becomes too great.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his intervention which was quite fine until the last few minutes when he indicated his party's policy. He indicated the fact that there would not be any ratification on the part of a Progressive Conservative government without provincial consensus.

The hon. member is well aware of the fact that there are two provinces that are and will continue to be definitely opposed to the ratification of Kyoto, namely Alberta and Ontario. The question therefore to the hon. member is this. Are the Progressive Conservatives taking an ambiguous position, knowing very well that two provinces will not agree to the ratification?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre elaborate for a moment on the study produced in Holland on Canada's predicted possible costs in the ratification of the Kyoto process, something that was briefly referred to by his colleague, the member for Vancouver East but only en passant, as we say?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of our colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie. I am totally in agreement with his speech and the point he raises.

He has done a good job commenting on parts (a) and (b) of the motion, but I would invite him to say a few words on the third part of the opposition motion, which reads:

(c) The Kyoto Protocol would do little or nothing to benefit the environment.

While not wishing to be unkind to our colleague from Red Deer, I find this somewhat of an exaggeration. I hope that my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois can comment on this third and very important part of the motion.

[Trade, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It relates to investor rights under the free trade agreement and specifically chapter 11.

As members know, last July a commitment was made to deal with the thorny issue of compensation to multinational corporations suing governments. Could the minister inform the House what progress has been made in addressing this intractable problem?

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the synthetic indignation on the part of the hon. member across the aisle who feels he should expand the scope of his intervention, but we are in report stage. We are dealing with specific motions and we are still anxious to hear him address the specific motions before the House.

The rule of relevance should apply to the hon. member as it applies to all of us in the House.

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately in Group No. 3 as in other groups there are certain amendments proposed by the government which seriously weaken the bill as reported to the House by our committee.

The majority of committee members passed good amendments which help to strengthen the bill which is now before us. One example is in the definition of wildlife species for the purpose of listing because listing is crucial and very important. For that reason, after having listened to witnesses from the scientific community, the majority of committee members improved the bill in the definition of species. That definition is one which includes “geographically or genetically distinct populations” as one of the criteria in determining whether a species should be put on the list. That recommendation came from the committee of scientists.

When the committee started to examine the bill, the scientists told us that the government definition was scientifically vague and scientifically inconsistent. I stress that originally they found it was vague and inconsistent with the scientific approach. We therefore amended the definition of species accordingly. The majority of committee members agreed that species should include in the definition “geographically or genetically distinct populations”.

Now at report stage, the government in an amazing display of insensitivity to the advice of the scientific community, has proposed to remove the amendment made in committee by the majority of the members and to water it down with the words “biologically distinct populations”. This is the very same terminology which the scientific community told us was vague and inconsistent.

I must bring to the attention of the House that this is a bad development both in substance and procedure. It is bad in substance because it would weaken the definition of species. It is bad in procedure because it shows disregard for the parliamentary process. I therefore must urge members to vote against Motions Nos. 9 and 10 which would weaken the definition of species.

Motion No. 120 in this group is also bad. I cannot recommend it because it rejects another amendment passed by the majority of committee members.

When we debate Groups Nos. 4 and 5, I will continue to identify motions which undo the work done by the majority of committee members, as I have already done with Groups Nos. 1 and 2.

It should be noted that the committee majority amended the bill in a variety of ways. I will briefly outline the thrust.

Throughout the process of examination and study of the bill, the intent has been to refine the political role on the road to approving the listing of endangered species. There is now a better balance than there was before when the bill was passed at second reading.

Another thrust was to reinforce volunteerism, contrary to what has been said by some in the House.

The third thrust was to set deadlines to ensure results. Deadlines are important. In this particular area time is of the essence in ensuring that a species is protected.

The final thrust was to increase the powers of the present and future Ministers of the Environment, so as to make him or her less dependent upon other departments or on the will of the Privy Council Office.

Those are roughly the thrusts we adopted in amending the bill as it stands before the House. The government unfortunately is trying to undo the work done by the majority of committee members. I must ask for the support of the House to resist such a move.

There was an interesting intervention yesterday by the member for Halton who made an excellent contribution to the committee's work. He was quite right when he said that he was sure that if anyone ran over a burrowing hole with a mower, or a peregrine falcon with his car, there would be no chance of his being charged. I am glad he made that point because it rebuts allegations, assumptions and wrong interpretations made mostly by members of the official opposition who are trying to instill fear and unnecessary concerns on the population by interpreting the bill in a manner that is totally incorrect. I am grateful for that and I applaud him.

I would also like to put to rest the concerns he raised in his speech yesterday. He spoke about the possibility of a polarization between rural and urban Canadians, a split in attitudes. The majority of committee members who voted for the changes which are now incorporated in the bill as reported to the House are rural members.

In the remaining two minutes I would like to rebut, in a gentle form of course, the intervention by the member for St. Albert who spoke about the socioeconomic costs. He has to make up his mind as to whether action is needed, even when it has some economic consequences, because if action is not taken, there are very serious health consequences.

Too often the term socioeconomic costs has been used in a loose manner in this debate. It is also a concept that is inserted too often in the bill itself.

In the context of the bill it means that socioeconomic costs in a certain form are a sword of Damocles. Madam Speaker, you would remember Damocles better than I, not because of age but because of your culture. The sword of Damocles is the economic interest that could take precedence over the decision to declare a species endangered. This is important to remember.

For example, imagine that scientists recommend that cod should be declared as an endangered species because it has been so exploited for socioeconomic reasons that it is now endangered. We can imagine the surprise in finding in the bill numerous references to socioeconomic considerations as reasons for not declaring a species endangered. Unfortunately many clauses in the bill are peppered with this contradiction.

If we lost the cod it would be because of socioeconomic considerations to a point where a moratorium had to be invoked. It would no longer be possible to say we must continue with the cod fishery in order to maintain the socioeconomic conditions of the villages in Newfoundland. At a certain point the resource would collapse.

Therefore to use socioeconomic considerations as a crutch is a very dangerous approach.

The member for St. Albert demonstrated it this morning in his intervention. At a certain point he has to make up his mind. When there are certain situations where the socioeconomic considerations can no longer be invoked because the species, the environment or human health are at such risk, difficult decisions have to be made because the socioeconomic considerations can no longer help us out.