Charles Caccia

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, because of the time limitation to which the hon. member for St. Albert has already alluded, I will very quickly put forward a proposal for consideration by the appropriate committee and then dive into the main issues that have emerged in the course of this afternoon and evening.

The rationale for the proposal I would like to put forward has to do with the fact that debates in parliament tend to be focused on pressing issues and controversies. They may be issues arising from legislation coming through the system, debates in question period, emerging debates, opposition days, et cetera. Rarely do parliamentarians get the opportunity to engage in debates addressing long term challenges, looking beyond the short term horizon.

The proposal I am putting forward is to allow for one evening debate per week on complex long term issues facing Canadians and perhaps the globe. The purpose of this exercise would be to make parliament more relevant, as it would extend its scope to analyze emerging issues, to examine future challenges and to articulate the public interest. Such debates would inform Canadians, would allow parliamentarians to tackle difficult issues and would allow for thinking outside the so-called box.

Such debates would not deal with issues currently on the legislative agenda, of course. They would likely not be subject to party discipline. They would allow for non-partisan debate in the House, constructive input by backbenchers at an early stage, and they would perhaps provide guidance for the executive.

The procedure would be simple. A committee of parliamentarians, one from each party, would review submissions of topics by colleagues in parliament and by the public, and they would decide the topic for debate. The topic would be presented in the form of a question in order to prompt debate about future trends and long term impact. CBC Radio does this frequently with a program on Sundays called Cross Country Checkup , an open mike program for listeners.

There are many examples of possible topics for discussion. They could include the price of medications, the impact of organizations, the relevance of economic indicators, regulating the Internet, modernization of the United Nations and the security council, Canada's role in peacekeeping, the electoral system, the impact of changing demographics in Canada, the aging population and our social services, and the demand and supply of the energy market.

Daylight savings time could be debated. Food safety is very topical, as is sustaining our forests and fisheries. We could debate setting limits to economic growth. We could look at trends in consumerism or the pace of technological change. The speed of political change would be a fascinating topic to debate, namely the race between the turtle and the hare. We could examine things from reproductive technologies to genetic engineering and the difficulties of the political system to catch up with the speed of technological change.

We could have a debate on social cohesion in Canada, on interprovincial trade, public transit, civil society, members of parliament's salaries if that is the wish, federal-provincial relations, the concentration of power in the media, and so on and so forth. These are possible topics for consideration by the appropriate committee.

Diving into the heart of the debate, which is quite interesting, I agree with a number of observations made by previous speakers, although time does not allow me to be more specific. Following the member from Prince Albert, I will say that in order to engage in thorough debate, particularly of estimates, we would need to look at our own calendar. Examining expenditures at length and in depth used to be the rule in the House until the late 1960s.

We would also need to change our patterns of attendance in Ottawa and probably delete a number of the weeks we are currently able to spend in our respective ridings. We would not be able to do some of the things that have been suggested this evening without changing our calendar.

Moving on to what has been said by those who want free votes and who have expressed frustration, and this seems to have been overlooked this afternoon and this evening, we operate in a party system. We are not a municipal council where it is every man for himself and where each person can vote and develop policy on the fly, so to speak. We have party conventions, we have a party program at every election, we have party associations, we have party caucuses, we have a party leader and there is consistency of policy in that respect. Therefore the vote is determined by our party affiliation.

That explains why there is party discipline. It explains why we have a party whip. Sometimes we vote in a manner that we would not do if we were freewheeling on a municipal council. That is very true. However let me add that we can vote against the government if we are on the government side.

We can vote against our party leader if we are on the opposition side, if we see fit to do so. It is not a pleasant experience, or something one lives with easily afterwards. However it can be done, it has been done and it will be done. That does not mean the system is bad. It is a party system. It is not a municipal council. The system requires discipline to move ahead and get things done.

I am sure every member of the opposition tonight, if they were on this side of the House and we were on the other side, would come to the same conclusion. There must be discipline, particularly on the part of members of the party in power, in order to move ahead and to govern.

Under Standing Order 108(2), committees can be the creators of very interesting reports. Time does not permit me to provide the titles of all of them. A report 20 years ago titled “Equality Now” was a great success. Very recently there was one on pesticides. If there is good will it is possible for a committee to determine a topic and produce reports which, if timely, can influence the course of action of governments.

The member for Winnipeg—Transcona made a number of very interesting points. One of them, which I remember clearly, is that he urged the House to introduce a measure whereby we would debate the ratification of treaties. He is right. We must do that. That is a shortcoming that needs to be corrected. He made a number of observations about which I would love to comment in a positive sense, but time does not permit me.

It is extremely important that we not lose sight of the role of the committee in charge of statutory instruments. It now has a different name but it nevertheless looks at regulations as they are drawn from legislation that is passed by parliament. It is an extremely important committee because a tremendous amount of power is inherent in regulations when they are written and that very often escapes the attention of parliamentarians. The regulations sometimes run in a direction that is not the one intended by the legislation from which they are drawn.

It is important for us, if we are interested in the exercise of power, to ensure that committee is properly equipped, properly staffed and that it has the resources necessary to examine the regulation. The same applies for public accounts.

Someone else has already mentioned the importance of allowing Canadians to see the candidates for the election of the Speaker. I support that idea fully.

I will conclude with the golden rule, which is this. It is for my party, since we are in power. In changing the rules of the House we should not adopt any rule or measure with which we would be uncomfortable and of which we would be critical one day when we might be, perish the thought, in opposition.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I heard the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he was commenting on a vote that took place in the House yesterday in a derogatory manner with respect to those who voted against the motion proposed by the official opposition.

I would respectfully submit that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is out of order when making such comments on a vote that has taken place in the House.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, March 14th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-295, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.

Mr. Speaker, in briefly introducing the bill I will say that it is intended as such to protect wildlife species in Canada from extirpation and extinction.

Nine years ago in Rio, Canada signed the international convention on biological diversity. The bill reflects Canada's commitment and takes into account reports that in Canada 364 species are at risk of extinction and that habitat loss is the number one cause.

If the bill becomes law it would make the scientific list of species at risk the legal list. It would make it an offence to harm, disturb or kill endangered species or their habitat. It would ensure that provinces implement equivalent legislation through the bill, thus providing mandatory habitat protection to all endangered species in Canada.

The bill is intended to serve as a benchmark for Bill C-5, the legislation introduced recently by the government.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is to be congratulated for reintroducing the bill. It is urgently needed.

As we all know, Canadians care about endangered species, as proven by the many conservation projects across Canada, and the minister has provided funding to support current and future initiatives in this respect.

His promotion of stewardship is a major improvement over previous bills. In addition, the measure to provide a safety net, should the provinces fail to enact similar provisions, is also a fine improvement on the 1996 version, namely Bill C-65.

The minister should also be commended for some changes to Bill C-33. His changes include definitions in the bill, so amended to be consistent with those used by the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, a scientific committee. His changes also include the publication of specific documents in the public registry set up under the act, to provide greater openness, transparency and accountability.

Let me now describe some of the shortcomings of the bill, which could be corrected in committee. As regards the initial list of species, cabinet may, on the recommendation of the minister, establish the list of wildlife species at risk, but it may not. The bill does not even guarantee that there will be an initial list.

Scientists have appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They expressed a serious concern. There are currently approximately 185 species that have been reassessed by scientists. As I recall the discussion, we were asked that the reassessed scientific list, currently at 185 species, come into force at the moment the legislation is proclaimed so as to make it the starting list. I support that proposal. Earlier this afternoon, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London put forward another proposal which I think has a great potential.

As to future changes by scientists to the list of species at risk, it is important to note that the provincial record, because of reliance on political listing, is very weak. Only 12% of endangered species have made it onto the legal list in Quebec; only 23% in Ontario; and only 32% in Saskatchewan. The abysmal provincial record shows how little protection may be given to species when politicians decide about listing.

The poor provincial record also underlines how crucial it is for Bill C-5 to ensure that the federal safety net will apply should a province fail to protect a species identified at risk by scientists. I commend the minister for having included this net. It is worth noting by contrast that in Nova Scotia the scientific list automatically becomes the legal list under the legislation. We should follow the Nova Scotia example.

Another weakness with the bill is that it contains too much discretion. In too many instances the minister may make a recommendation to cabinet, but he or she may not. Then there is the hurdle posed by the fact that cabinet may decide to enact crucial provisions of Bill C-5, but it may not. This means there is uncertainty in the implementation of the act affecting those who use the land. Landowners and other interested parties would not be given a clear indication of how they are to improve their practices to protect endangered species because of the uncertainty surrounding the implementation of key provisions of the bill.

Next, as we all know, the primary cause of the loss of species in this country is the loss of habitat, therefore, the importance of critical habitat. There is very strong public support for mandatory habitat protection. I received over 1,500 postcards and letters urging the government to provide mandatory habitat protection and I am sure my colleagues have too.

In the bill there is no mandatory habitat protection to species even within federal jurisdiction. Provisions against destroying the critical habitat of an endangered species would apply only where specified by cabinet even on federal lands. Similarly, regulations to implement necessary measures to protect critical habitats on federal lands are left to the discretion of cabinet.

By contrast, in the earlier bill, Bill C-65 which died in the 35th parliament, the responsible minister had the authority to regulate or prohibit activities that would adversely affect the species or its critical habitat. Why should cabinet be required to determine every component of the critical habitat to be protected for every species? Why not give the authority to the Minister of the Environment alone?

Then we come to the protection of the critical habitat of species within federal jurisdiction. That includes species on federal lands, migratory birds, aquatic species and cross border species. Here again the critical habitat of species at risk within federal jurisdiction may or may not be protected, depending on the will of cabinet, not of the responsible minister alone. Why leave such a key decision, clearly within the federal government's jurisdiction, to the entire cabinet and not to the Minister of the Environment alone as is very often the case with other important key legislation in other sectors?

Moreover, prohibitions against destroying critical habitats may apply to species on federal lands in the exclusive economic zone of Canada or in the continental shelf of Canada. Cabinet may make regulations to protect critical habitats only on federal land. These sections of the bill need to be strengthened to include all federal jurisdictions, namely all federal lands, migratory birds, cross border species and aquatic species.

The Minister of the Environment made a strong commitment when he said in the House on February 19: “These species, the species at risk, and their critical habitat will be protected whether they are on federal, provincial or territorial or privately owned land”.

However there are too many layers of discretion in the bill to facilitate the implementation of the minister's commitment. There are two other ministers whose approval is also needed. Then there is the whole cabinet that needs to be persuaded to act. The likelihood that the federal government will apply habitat protection even on federal lands is slim as the bill is written at the present time.

As to chances that the federal government will provide a safety net are even smaller. Where the minister finds that the province or territory is not protecting the critical habitat, the minister must make the recommendation to cabinet after consulting with the territorial or provincial minister. There is no time limit on these consultations. They could go on for a long time. Added to this is cabinet discretion. Conditions make it unlikely that habitat protection provisions will be put in place in the provinces or territories when needed.

The same can be said about the general prohibitions against killing a species or destroying its residence. Such provisions would apply on lands of a province or territory only to the extent that the federal government may specify after the minister has consulted with the province or territory. Obviously Bill C-5 would be more effective with a time limit for consultations and a time limit for the minister to make his or her recommendation.

I strongly urge the government to make the necessary amendments, so as to give the Minister of the Environment the tools he, or she, may need in the future to do what he said he would do, when he said in the House:

Make no mistake, where voluntary measures do not work, or other governments are unwilling or unable to act, the federal safety net will apply.

As to the discretionary federal powers, make no mistake. We all know these powers, which address cross border or federal-provincial environmental problems, have existed for many years. They are included in the Canada Wildlife Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canada Water Act, et cetera. However, federal discretionary powers have not been used. Why rely on their use for providing effective protection of endangered species if in reality there is no record of the use of such powers?

I am splitting my time, Madam Speaker, with the member for North York. Canadians place high expectations on this government for protecting endangered species. The legislation offers great potential for co-operative management and stewardship of our land and wildlife but amendments are needed. Hopefully, after hearing witnesses the committee the government will decide to make the necessary changes.

I will conclude by saying that we need strong legislation to halt the continued slide toward extinction of endangered species before it is too late.

[Food And Drugs Act, February 28th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food).

Mr. Speaker, the bill, as you have already indicated, would provide for a mandatory labelling system of all food ingredients that are or that contain a genetically modified organism.

The bill would require the genetic history of a food or food ingredient to be recorded and traced through all stages of distribution, manufacturing, packaging and sale. This requirement would ensure accurate labelling.

The precautionary approach adopted in the bill would allow the Minister of Health to monitor the presence of genetically modified foods in the Canadian food chain and to initiate research into the potential long term effects of the consumption of genetically modified foods on human health.

Finally, the bill would also enable food manufacturers and consumers to make an informed decision when purchasing products containing genetically modified material.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association delegation which represented Canada at the preparatory meeting of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development at the Council of Europe in London, England from January 16 to January 20, 2001.

I am also honoured to present in both official languages, under Standing Order 34(1), the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association delegation which represented Canada at the Council of Europe parliamentary assemblies plenary session held in Strasbourg from January 20 to January 27, 2001.

[Immigration, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, every MP in the House knows or should know how often people walk into a member's constituency office and ask for assistance on immigration matters. It happens every day. It is part of an MP's job.

Riding offices in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver easily receive 2,000 to 3,000 requests per year. It is a well known fact that constituency offices of ministers of the crown receive even more requests than ordinary MPs, often from neighbouring ridings.

It is also well known that inquiries with a MP's constituency office on the status of an immigrant file are processed as a routine matter and hardly ever brought to the attention of the MP, who is usually busy in Ottawa.

It is therefore most unfortunate that some opposition members' lack of familiarity with this aspect of a MP's regular constituency function has led to a smear campaign against the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who, as we all know, is a hard working parliamentarian, deeply committed to his constituents.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. My understanding from Bill C-4, in particular section 11, is that there is an elaborate system for the appointment of directors. This would make the foundation fairly independent and considerably at arm's length from the government.

The provision as written divides the directors into three categories. The first one deals with persons engaged in the development and demonstration of technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change and air quality issues. One could safely interpret this clause to mean that these would be scientists, technicians and researchers or engineers.

The second category would be from the business community on which I do not need to elaborate.

The third category is non-profit corporations. They would probably be NGOs and other agencies that are knowledgeable and competent in providing advice and direction to the foundation on technological innovation on the mandate of the foundation.

These three sectors put together would seem to indicate that this type of foundation would operate with a considerable degree of independence, if not entire independence. It should be able to achieve the goals, and we hope it will achieve them, that the hon. member and I have in mind.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for introducing the bill and for the compassionate commitments he made a few hours ago to the cause of sustainable development. I also congratulate the member for South Shore for his open and very supportive intervention which I found extremely helpful, and I am sure the government did as well.

The member for Athabasca raised some fears in connection with the bill which perhaps could be allayed because there is definitely a precedent for the foundation that is being proposed, namely the foundation for sustainable development technology.

In the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, we find the commitment by the federal government to create a Canada Foundation for Innovation for the purpose of modernizing, acquiring or developing research infrastructure in science, health, engineering and environment. In terms of its structure, the Canada Foundation for Innovation is very similar to the proposed Canada foundation for sustainable development technology. It is managed by a mix of appointments approved by the governor in council and foundation members. It is also required to table an annual report of its activities before parliament.

One important difference between the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the foundation for sustainable development is funding.

In contrast to the $100 million that would be provided to the Canada foundation for sustainable development technology, the Canada foundation for innovation was given an initial allotment of $800 million, an additional $200 million in the 1999 budget, and in the 2000 budget, another $900 million, for a total investment of $1.9 billion.

Another noteworthy difference is that unlike the Canada foundation for sustainable development technology, there is no authority for the governing council to enter into agreement with the Canada foundation for innovation to develop eligibility criteria respecting eligible recipients, thus making this body more independent from the government.

Finally, the Canada foundation for innovation appears to have worked out very well in practice. Hopefully, the proposed Canada foundation for sustainable development technology will follow in its footsteps.

In the debate at second reading, which is a debate on the principle of the bill, there is room for discussion on what technology for sustainable development should be all about. Perhaps there is a conceptual challenge here. I would argue that one should be clear in his or her mind as to what the technology for sustainable development ought to achieve. Should it achieve a balance between the economy of the environment, as some people suggest and have suggested in recent years, or should it instead be a technology for sustainable development to integrate social, economic and environmental objectives? I fully subscribe to the latter interpretation.

I would suggest that perhaps this concept of integrating objectives of a social, economic and environmental nature ought to be incorporated in the definition of sustainable development in the bill, in addition to the one that is already in draft form.

This morning the minister outlined five areas of activity for this particular foundation for sustainable development technology. He referred to technology for carbon sequestration, for new and alternative fuel sources, for energy efficiency, for enhanced oil recovery and for technology to reduce particulate matters in the air. These are all energy related areas, some of which could provide interesting results.

Let me only comment, perhaps in a superficial manner, to the fact that when it comes to carbon sequestration, we already have a well developed technology that has existed for millions of years, our trees and forests. I submit that it would be hard to find better ways of sequestering carbon that would be able to compete with the durability and effectiveness of trees and forests.

On another area, some of the technology to reduce particulate matters in the air already exists. It is a well known fact that particulate matters are in good part due to the burning of diesel fuel. The purification of the diesel substance and the removal of sulphur and particulate matters is one that ought to be possible without additional research as envisaged in the outline this morning. What the removal of particulate matter requires is timetables, percentages and the will to do so. I believe that the Minister of the Environment, on his announcement on air quality later today, this week or next month, will make a substantial statement on this matter to this effect.

Will it be technology to research ways and means to reduce energy demand or just to enhance and facilitate energy supply? That is a question that troubles me. We seem to be engaged in recent times in research and in emphasizing the need for increased supply. We seem to have lost sight of the importance of energy demand and how to handle it. However, evidently if we are going into energy efficiency, we must probably go into energy conservation and some knowledge has already been accumulated in this field in recent years.

Surely, on a global plane, the predicted rising population from some six billion people today to nine billion people some 40 years from now is posing an enormous challenge to this particular foundation in Canada and of course around the globe.

In examining what the technology can do, obviously the technological fix, as they call it, can go a long way in resolving some of our economic, environmental and social problems. However, I would submit that on climate change in particular, which seems to be the main thrust of research that is to be assigned to this particular foundation, attention ought to be paid to existing policies. In other words, technology needs help from changes to current policies, and in particular, to current policies in taxation on energy. The technology thrust, in order words, cannot be effective in isolation. It needs to be helped by measures that will make the task of reducing, for instance, greenhouse gases easier by the way in which we act through our fiscal and taxation provisions.

We have outdated tax subsidies which increase greenhouse gas emissions, as members know, with particular respect to the production of oil sands. We have an outdated tax system favouring fossil fuel energy over renewable sources of energy. Certainly, we still have to establish as a bare minimum a so-called level playing field between non-renewable and renewable sources of energy in the taxation treatment that we give in Canada to these sources of energy. Progress must be made in updating and fitting our taxation system in a manner that will help to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions so that taxation policy will support and reinforce what the foundation is being asked to do. The taxation system of course could then make the achievement of the goals of the foundation much easier.

These are just some thoughts that came to mind while listening to the debate so far. I submit them for the consideration and attention of the government.

[Supreme Court Of Canada, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to allow the extradition of two men accused of murder on the condition they not be executed is to be applauded and supported.

To the dismay of some members opposite, the supreme court has made a landmark decision reflecting the view of many, including that of the distinguished Italian jurist, Cesar Beccaria, when he wrote over 200 years ago about the death penalty:

The state should set the example of civilized behaviour and not take human lives in a cold and deliberate way, applying violence to deter the use of violence.

It is time now for the United States of America, China and other countries to heed Beccaria's admonishment and abolish the death penalty in the name of progress and civilization, as has already been done by 104 parliaments around the globe.