Charles Caccia

[Oak Ridges Moraine, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Oak Ridges moraine runs for 160 kilometres across the northern boundary of the greater Toronto area. The moraine absorbs and filters rain water and serves as headwater to 30 rivers that provide drinking water.

It constitutes the last natural corridor in the greater Toronto area and hosts many rare species of plants and animals. It is accessible to the public and has many recreational uses. It is designated as an area of concern by the International Joint Commission.

The moraine is already under pressure from existing housing developments, yet new housing developments near Uxbridge are planned.

Mike Colle, a provincial member in Ontario, has introduced a bill proposing a provincial commission to oversee planning and development on the Oak Ridges moraine so as to ensure the protection of this unique ecological area. His thoughtful proposal deserves immediate attention, in particular because of the warnings the assistant deputy minister has given to the minister of municipal affairs in a recent report.

[National Parks Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member for Ottawa—Vanier, the member for Vancouver Island North, the member for Laval West and the members for Brandon—Souris and West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for their interventions and for their comments.

I will deal first with the claim that the area is already represented by other parks. I am particularly addressing the member for Ottawa—Vanier who, with all due respect, is not on the right track.

The current national parks system, as he mentioned, uses a framework of 39 regions for the purpose of planning national parks. The Stoltmann wilderness area is located in the Pacific coast mountains region, the natural region No. 1. Two parks called Gwaii Haanas and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve currently represent this region in the system.

The two parks are beautiful. They certainly deserve protection and they have received it. Both parks are located, however, on islands off the mainland coast. They are not located in the coast mountains. This is the very ecosystem that these two parks are supposed to represent.

Therefore, I submit respectfully to the parliamentary secretary, that there is a very legitimate reason for proposing this park: this particular region on the mainland is not represented.

Second, we have the rather spurious and unfounded argument by the member for Brandon—Souris who tossed out his conclusion that this is a bad piece of legislation because consultations are not included in the legislation. The legislation is intended to provide a broad framework, a concept for the establishment of a park. The regulations then set out the process of consultations which are natural and most essential in the formation of any national park.

At this stage, when logging is taking place and the roof of the house is on fire, we are certainly not going to put consultations first on paper and then into legislation. We first need some form of legislation that will allow the consultations to take place.

I will move swiftly to the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, who has, I must say, a rather insular view of an MP's role. He thinks everybody should sit in their own little cubicle in downtown Toronto or uptown Montreal, or safely in the harbour of St. John's, and the rest of Canada does not count; it does not matter what happens there; we are elected like municipal councillors; and we should not take a view of the nation or the country as a whole. Well, that is his privilege.

I invite him to visit Davenport and give us advice on how to establish a Stanley Park, for which we envy Vancouverites all the time when we manage to visit Vancouver. In my case, I am an adopted British Columbian considering the number of times I have crossed the country to visit it. I have been in this particular area twice.

It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate from downtown Toronto to look at what happens on either coast or in the Arctic, and for members from British Columbia to tell us in Toronto how to improve our industrial set up, how to reduce pollution, how to improve on our public transit, anything.

I invite the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to visit Toronto. I would be glad to take him out to a spaghetti dinner and introduce him to a lot of very interesting people who know how make wine at home.

As to the position of the department, let me add that 15 years ago the department was also indifferent to the creation of South Moresby. It was extremely difficult to convince the department to take to heart the creation of a park in South Moresby.

However, because of people like Speaker Fraser, other people who were then in government and some of us in the opposition, that park eventually became a reality many years later. These processes are very slow and complex. The political rewards cannot be seen by the same generation but perhaps can be harvested by the next one.

The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast rejects this initiative. He rejects native concerns. He rejects the tourism potential. He rejects the habitat protection. He rejects even the remarks of the mayor of Squamish. I am told that during the election debate Mayor Lonsdale said she would look positively at the proposal if an economic study recommended it and if more jobs including replacements for displaced forest workers were created than lost. This is a very responsible statement by the mayor. I must congratulate her.

Also the concerns of Chief Williams must be put on record. Chief Williams opposes logging by Interfor in the Elaho Valley.

The member for Vancouver Island North made a reference to the adequacy of what has been done so far. The Elaho Valley is the heart of this particular area. It is the most valuable habitat of the entire valley. Without the Elaho heart we would lose the real significance and the real potential from the habitat potential point of view, from the ecosystem point of view, that the entire valley has. It would amputate the valley. Half of it would become clear cut and the other half along the slopes of the mountains would remain, thus depriving the habitat adequate protection.

[National Parks Act, November 24th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-236, an act to amend the National Parks Act (Stoltmann National Park), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I express my gratitude for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-236, which would amend the National Parks Act to create the Stoltmann National Park. It would require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to commence negotiations with the Government of British Columbia to ensure the establishment of a new national park in British Columbia comprising the Stoltmann wilderness area.

The purpose of the bill is to designate a 500,000 hectare area, which includes the Elaho Valley, as the Stoltmann National Park. The name comes from a famous conservationist, Randy Stoltmann, who first proposed in April 1994 that the area be preserved, shortly before his untimely death.

The area is located a three hour drive north of Vancouver, not far from the world's famous four season resort village of Whistler. It is a wilderness area located on the mainland of British Columbia in the coastal mountain range. This is an important observation.

The question will arise as to why the area should be protected as a national park. These are the reasons.

First, the Stoltmann wilderness area has a unique ecosystem found nowhere else in Canada. I visited the area twice. The Stoltmann wilderness area includes ancient rain forest trees. Its pristine valleys of old growth forest have stands of Douglas firs which date back some 1,000 and even 1,300 years. The diverse habitat of the valley provides a home for black bears, grizzly bears, a moose population and other very interesting species.

The area offers habitat to a grizzly bear population identified by the British Columbia wildlife branch as being threatened. It is anticipated to become a grizzly bear recovery management area under that very province's grizzly bear conservation strategy. It is designed to help reverse the loss of grizzly bears in British Columbia.

Recently Clendenning Provincial Park was created by the province. I congratulate the government for having done so. But this is not a sufficient reason to justify logging in the remaining grizzly bear habitat of the Elaho Valley.

Members may be aware that the province of British Columbia has recognized the ecological value of the area by establishing three provincial parks. The current parks cover less than 10% of the entire Stoltmann wilderness area. Grizzly bears have very large pristine habitat requirements and according to expert conservation biologists, these parks are not sufficient to sustain them.

Other animals have been sighted by experts, biologists and the like in the area, such as wolves, racoons, moose, deer, as well as numerous birds and small mammal species. The proposed national park would protect one of Canada's rarest types of old growth forest as well as the habitat of many wildlife species, including grizzly bear populations that are at risk.

The second reason is that the protection of the ecosystem in the Stoltmann area is gradually becoming a matter of national concern. Hundreds of letters and cards have come in asking for the protection of this unique ecosystem. They have been sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Canadian Heritage who is responsible for national parks, the Minister of the Environment, the British Columbia premier, myself and many others.

Moreover, there are numerous reports in the media on the pitiful state of our national parks system in general. The panel headed by Mr. Jacques Gérin, who is a respected international consultant, is about to produce a report. The federal government 10 years ago pledged to complete the national parks system by the year 2000 and reiterated its commitment in the Speech from the Throne. It must be noted that to date, only four out of the 15 promised parks have been created.

Two years ago Parks Canada reported that only one park is not threatened by human activity. The other 38 are threatened by logging, mining, hydroelectric development and tourism development. This is an issue of great significance across the country.

One may ask why the Stoltmann area is not currently represented within the national parks system. The current national parks system uses a framework of 39 natural regions for planning for national parks. The Stoltmann wilderness area is being clear cut and roads are being pushed into pristine areas, despite the fact that the forest service in the U.S. has imposed moratoria on road building on public lands in grizzly bear recovery areas.

In the Stoltmann area per se, we find beautiful ancient growths of trees which are currently logged by International Forest Products, Interfor, a Vancouver based company with logging rights in the area. This exploitation of one of the last old growth forests in Canada will only generate short term benefits as the resource will soon be exhausted. Establishing this park makes sense because it would prevent the loss of a beautiful ecosystem. In addition, as I will expand on in a moment, it would also offer a golden economic opportunity for the long term.

The long term benefits of establishing such a national park are very interesting and deserve to be explored. Currently some estimate that logging in this area supports anywhere between 30 and 70 local logging jobs. By contrast, a study conducted a few years ago revealed that Banff National Park generates $614 million per year for the local economy. In Whistler the tourism industry has recognized the potential long term benefits of a national park in the area and it has commissioned a study to evaluate the economic benefits of the proposed Stoltmann national park.

At present, with little infrastructure and no legal protection, this area already is visited frequently. Therefore the establishment of the Stoltmann national park would generate tourism. It would generate economic activity. It would generate employment in the area where by contrast, logging jobs would be in decline and would eventually be phased out when the resource had been exhausted.

I submit that a diversified economic base is critical to the future of communities in the region surrounding the Elaho Valley. A national park would secure long term benefits for the regional economy. As well it would preserve this area for the benefit of present and future generations of visitors.

Citizens, it must be said, are quite active in urging us to take action to protect the Stoltmann wilderness area in the valley. As I have explained, letters have been written in support of a national park. Most of these letters are private accounts describing the beauty encountered by people visiting the area and even letters of outrage at the fate of this region. The public as well as many groups have currently no public venue for these concerns to be addressed. As a result, there is a growing degree of frustration and tension in the area.

In 1996 the province of British Columbia held a planning process in the lower mainland area of B.C. Unfortunately, important voices were not heard in the consultation process. Concerned citizens, environmental and native groups have expressed discontent with the lack of public access to the hearings that took place.

Moreover there was a serious gap in the consultation. The planning process, for instance, did not include environmental impact assessments of the proposed land use, its impact on wilderness and on grizzly bear habitat. It did not include economic studies of various land use options. In fact, in order to find the solution, the premier of British Columbia is directing people to write to the federal Minister of the Environment on this issue, believe it or not.

The discussion on the future of this valley must inevitably and most urgently also include the question of native rights. In the Stoltmann wilderness area there are four native groups whose territory includes parts of Stoltmann. The largest portion belongs to the Squamish native group who are currently in treaty negotiations. Squamish natives have expressed their concern that current logging is destroying their land. They have been closely working with conservation groups in order to prevent this from happening.

It must be said that a national park would include recognition of native land rights. The process would begin with negotiations with native groups on the best approach to protect this land for the benefit of everyone.

An option could be a co-managed national park reserve such as the one that was set up and established quite successfully in South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

As I have explained, the merits for this proposal are numerous, but most important is the sense of urgency associated with it. At the current rate of exploitation by the logging company it will soon be too late. This unique wilderness area will not be worth protecting any longer as private interests will run away with the profits and will leave behind clear cuts and impoverished land.

The federal government has an opportunity to provide through the process of establishing a national park the much needed open democratic process that people have been asking for by negotiating with all parties involved: concerned citizens, environmental and conservationist groups, the logging company, native groups, the tourism industry, all of them. The federal government has the opportunity to co-manage with the first nations all that this publicly owned piece of wilderness has to offer. The protection of this unique wilderness area is for the long term benefit of everyone.

To conclude, this area is located in the Pacific coast mountains region of British Columbia. It is an area that is not yet represented in the network established by the Parks Canada system. This is why the Stoltmann national park commands attention by those of us who are keen in ensuring that we have an adequate national parks system as a heritage for future generations of Canadians.

I know there are dissenting views on this matter. I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues and to take good note of what they have to say. I am partially familiar with what the dissenting views are about. Very simply, the Stoltmann national park stands for whether we are guided in our decision making process by the short term or the long term. I hope that the long term will prevail.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on May 15, 1998 and again on November 3, 1999, I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he planned to introduce legislation to ban water exports and removals.

Today, the minister introduced Bill C-15, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. These amendments will only prohibit the removal of boundary water between Canada and the United States.

While these amendments would cover only boundary waters such as the Great Lakes and Columbia River, they would leave out most of our lakes, many water bodies, the entire province of Newfoundland and et cetera.

This is a most frustrating situation considering the fact that we are still waiting for the water export policy as well as for the comprehensive water policy as recommended by the Pearse report 15 years ago.

Then there is the question of the proposed voluntary accord. I with to congratulate the federal environment minister for taking a watershed approach that would ban the removal of water from its natural basin. Clearly, this is more comprehensive than a simple export ban as it makes ecological sense to stop bulk water removal at the source and not only at the border.

However, the Minister of the Environment intends to do so through a federal-provincial voluntary agreement to ban water removal from major drainage basins. I submit this approach ought to be broadened to all Canadian water bodies and not limited to boundary waters. I am saying this for three reasons or at least two.

First, the proposed voluntary accord would be just that, voluntary. It would not legally bind any province to protect our water resources.

Second, the proposed accord would do nothing to prohibit export initiatives undertaken by municipalities, crown agencies, corporations or even private parties. Even if the provinces wanted to ban water removals and exports, it is the federal government that has the constitutional authority to regulate trade.

Understandably, the federal government hopes that a province by province voluntary ban would treat water protection strictly as an environmental issue and that trade lawyers will not see the disguise.

However, water removals and exports are already a trade issue since there is a challenge under NAFTA brought by a water export company against the Government of Canada for compensation because of British Columbia's decision to ban water exports. Through the proposed accord, the federal government is thus asking the provinces to take their own action on banning water exports.

The government's definition of basins as Canadian is weak because basin describes a geographical feature without regard to political boundaries. The concept of basin is problematic for an accord or legislation intended to secure resources management for political institutions. This is an essential concept for any legislation that intends to withstand trade challenges that are exactly intended to transcend political boundaries.

The proposed accord will lead to a patchwork of provincial initiatives, thus making Canada more vulnerable to trade challenges. The legislation tabled today is, it seems to me, too limited in scope to provide protection to most of our water bodies.

It seems quite clear, that a meaningful protection of our water resources requires the federal government to face the reality of international trade agreements. In search of the most effective strategy to protect our water resources from exports, I would recommend: first, to enact federal legislation designed specifically for the purpose of banning bulk transboundary water removals from Canada; and second, to renegotiate international trade agreements to seek an exclusion or waiver of water from such agreements.

I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's comments.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages, the first report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the meeting of the Council of Europe's commission on the environment, land use and local authorities, held in Paris on May 21, 1999.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. The association represented Canada at meetings of the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly's economic affairs and development committee, at the Paris headquarters of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on 18 June, and in the parliamentary assembly's plenary session in Strasbourg from June 21 to June 25, 1999.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the third report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly's plenary session in Strasbourg from September 20 to 25, 1999.

[Squeegee Kids, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, squeegee kids are carving for themselves an economic niche at the margin of society but still within it. They do not conform to our model of dressing and behaving, but then, did we at their age?

Squeegee kids create their own jobs. They work in hot and cold weather. They are often left without remuneration when traffic lights turn green.

Believing in repression rather than accommodation, the Ontario government, showing again its ugly face, has decided to prosecute squeegee kids. This is not surprising from a government which wrenches $2.6 million from the budget for battered women.

Evidently the Ontario government needs money to build jails, presumably for incarcerated squeegee kids. The Reform Party most likely supports such a policy, but hopefully it will prove me wrong.

This message is brought to the House by the Coalition of Citizens for a Less Vicious Government in Ontario.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, November 3rd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.

Mr. Speaker, the committee on the status of endangered wildlife reports that in Canada 339 species are at risk of extinction and habitat loss is the number one cause. Yet there is no federal law protecting the habitat of Canada's endangered wildlife.

The bill aims at: first, protecting all endangered species and their habitat; second, identifying species at risk and the factors that threaten them and their habitat; third, making it an offence to harm, disturb or kill endangered species or their habitat; fourth, setting the stage for federal-provincial mirror legislation.

The bill serves as a benchmark for the government legislation soon to be introduced. Seven years ago, Canada signed in Rio the convention on biological diversity. In view of Canada's commitment to the world community and the fact that a recent poll found that eight Canadians out of ten are in favour of strong endangered species legislation, I urge the government to act without delay.

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

[Foreign Affairs, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Canadians believe it is urgent that we protect Canada's water from removals and exports. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs inform the House when he plans to introduce legislation on bulk water exports and removals?

[Food Labelling, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's decision in favour of voluntary labelling of foods derived from biotechnology is a good initial step in the right direction. That option is already available to food companies. So far, however, most companies are not labelling their genetically modified foods.

Last week 200 Health Canada scientists declared that they do not have the capacity to assess the safety of genetically modified products. At present labelling is mandatory only when Health Canada has identified a health concern.

I therefore urge the responsible minister to make labelling of all genetically altered foods mandatory because Canadians want to know what is and what is not genetically modified.

[Petitions, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by individuals from the metropolitan Toronto area.

The first petition requests that parliament ask the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to review existing income requirements to allow all potential sponsors to not be unduly burdened. It requests that more than one person be allowed to sponsor the same individual and to share the responsibility of financial support for that immigrant.

The second petition calls upon parliament to ask the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to review the existing fee structure, to combine the landing and processing fees and to lower the fee to $500 per application.