Charles Caccia

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to express my words of thanks to the hon. members who participated in this debate and provided their comments, views, suggestions and criticisms.

It is unfortunate to hear the Reform Party expressing its lack of belief in the role of government and its belief in the fact that somehow society should find a way to solve its own problems by way of some mysterious activity which is not the result of the decision of society to govern itself by way of established rules that come about when we decide to have a government.

The Reform approach is one that would lead to very few decisions being made in the name of society at large. I suspect that we would not have social security or programs that bind society and distribute wealth if we were to fully bring to its ultimate consequence the philosophy of the Reform Party.

With respect to this bill it is very doubtful that we would ever be able to protect endangered species and come to some tangible results if it were left to the enterprise of individuals, as well intentioned as they may be, to come to some initiatives that would ensure protection of the species.

I was struck by the comments made by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who spent much time describing the issue in terms of federal and provincial species. This is an interesting political point of view and an interesting way of dividing the fauna surrounding us. However the fact remains that birds and animals do not understand political jurisdictions.

We would not want to have a system whereby a bird landing on a provincial stone would be out of luck because the particular province did not have specific legislation to protect birds. However, if the same bird were to land on a federal stone it might have some degree of protection.

Surely this is not what the hon. member intended to imply as the ultimate consequence of her logic. It seems to me that she is on a very dangerous slippery slope if she tries to judge legislation on the basis of jurisdiction that is of a political and human made nature and does not take into account the reality of the fact that animals move. There are not only migratory birds that she generously attributes to federal jurisdiction. There are also animals that do not respect provincial boundaries.

There is a consensus among all participants on the recognition of the absolute necessity of protecting habitat. Habitat is the key to the legislation which ought to have some impact and ensure the protection of endangered species.

It seems we have a consensus that is rather encouraging. I hope it will give the Government of Canada sufficient material on which to build interesting legislation. It is quite obvious that without habitat there cannot be adequate protection of endangered species.

In this sense I hope the hour we have spent on this bill has been a productive one and one that can be used for the design of good and lasting legislation.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might start this debate by asking ourselves the following questions: Why are we in this predicament? Why does Canada have some 300 species which have been identified as being at risk?

Part of the answer may be found in a study by Donald Ludwig, Ray Hilborn and Carl Walters recently produced at the University of British Columbia and entitled “Uncertainty, resource exploitation and conservation: Lessons from history”.

They conclude first that scientific certainty can rarely be achieved especially in answer to the question of how long our resources will last. If we delay and wait for a definite answer, the only certainty will be to find that we are likely to run out or will run out of fish, forest, certain animals and plants.

Their second conclusion is that humans are often motivated by greed in exploiting natural resources.

There is a need therefore to act in a way that compensates for the two realities they have identified. That is why we need endangered species legislation with certain characteristics.

Who should decide? It seems to me that the role of scientists ought to be defined as to who would determine which species is threatened, vulnerable or endangered. Scientists, therefore, would, through a special committee, have the power to determine which species need protection, and then find ways of ensuring the recovery of the species. The scientists would work at arm's length from government. Once they determine a species is in trouble, the procedure leading to protection would also be set into motion.

The next question is: How do we protect the living spaces of endangered species? It seems quite clear by now that they must be protected. It means that to protect a species at risk without protecting the land and water that the species depends on is not possible. To protect an owl without also protecting the area that provides it with food and nesting material will not do. It does little to protect a large carnivore like the polar bear, which has been listed as vulnerable since 1991, without ensuring its territory and ensuring that it is not devastated by human activities, including mining operations. The same arguments apply for the many animals lower on the food chain, as well as plants, that are at risk in Canada.

How to proceed in the federal system is a difficult question to answer. It is often said that strong legislation is not possible because we are a federation. The possible answer to that is mirror legislation, which would work in the following way: When a province decides to protect endangered species within its territories, it would ask the Government of Canada to sign an agreement that once that province has equivalent protections in place for the species, then the federal law would not be enforced in that particular province. It would be a coming together between two jurisdictions with the same kind of approach for the purpose of protecting the endangered species.

This approach is necessary because species do not know the meaning of borders. If their extinction is to be prevented, there cannot be a patchwork of protections from province to province with no protection at all in some, weak protection in others and so on.

The other reason we have to move with this particular type of legislation is our international commitments. In 1992 in Rio, Canada was the first nation to sign the convention on biological diversity. The Government of Canada made a commitment to conserve our biological heritage for future generations. Other countries are beginning to take note of our lack of progress on this front. It has been seven years since we signed the convention and we still have no law protecting species at risk.

Protecting species also means protecting a part of the global commons; the resources that belong to everybody, to the global community. Therefore, when damage is done to one species, every other species somehow suffers and is affected by that.

Some people fear that an endangered species legislation would threaten private property. There is no need to panic, because a solution can be found for this particular concern.

The emphasis should not be on what individuals can do to protect the global commons. The emphasis should be on finding solutions and establishing roles for the individual and for the communities in order to arrive at a solution, rather than identifying the obstacles whereby we should not be acting. When it comes to the issue of private property, the tendency has been to magnify that particular issue rather than in developing approaches that would, in the end, result in a solution to that particular problem.

This kind of legislation is now becoming very urgent. The Canadian public is certainly very keen. It has responded very favourably to every initiative made by parliamentarians in alerting the government to the need for moving in this direction.

I hope this bill will serve the purpose that it was originally intended to serve, namely to provide a benchmark for the Government of Canada to possibly adopt in its fullness so that we can have an effective piece of legislation that will be functioning properly in a federal system and that will be adequately removed from political pressures.

I would be glad now to defer to my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, May 6th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-441, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Mining Industry, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, arsenic is a very dangerous substance when it comes in contact with humans. Arsenic often reaches drinking water from mining operations.

In Yellowknife the Giant gold mine contains 260,000 tonnes of arsenic dust. Clean-up costs are estimated at $100 million. The owner of the mine has filed for bankruptcy. Who will pay for the clean-up?

Meanwhile in Ontario the provincial government has failed to prevent massive arsenic leaks from an old mine and toxic waste dump near Belleville.

Clearly where pollution has already occurred, the polluter must pay. The mining industry has a responsibility to the public and should not leave Canadians on the hook for the damage caused by its activities. The mining industry should live up to its Yellowknife declaration and clean up its contaminated sites instead of passing on the damage to the public purse, mainly to Canadians at large.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association has the honour to present its report to the Canadian delegation to the first part of the 1999 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held from January 25 to 29, 1999 in Strasbourg, France.

[Earth Day, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is not much to celebrate on Earth Day in the Province of Ontario. Why? It is because the Ontario government has gutted its environment ministry, laying off over 700 employees. It has stopped enforcing environmental laws, thus allowing Ontario to become North America's third worst polluter.

It has failed to put into place a fair and effective car emission control program. It has allowed pollution from plants burning dirty coal to go up by 60%. It has cut spending on public transit causing the current TTC strike putting more cars on the road and generating more pollution.

In Ontario, Earth Day, rather than a celebration is a call to action as urged by the Ontario Medical Association which points to air pollution as the cause of 1,800 premature deaths every year in that province.

[Committees Of The House, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

In accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, April 28, 1998, your committee has considered Bill C-32, an act to prevent pollution and to protect the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

It was agreed on Thursday, March 25, 1999, that this bill be reported with some 159 amendments as a result of 58 meetings.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his question.

I share the same feelings he expressed when he talked about images that are difficult to watch and about the pain he feels when he thinks about our brothers and sisters who are suffering.

To answer his question regarding a vote, I have no difficulty supporting the idea of a vote. Tonight, we all have the opportunity to state our position on the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo in the speeches and interventions we are ready to make.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The issue of refugees is one that prompted the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make a very fine intervention and to lay out the position of the Government of Canada in its decision to accept refugees. In her speech she recognized the generosity and the spirit of the Canadian people vis-à-vis the movement of refugees in the past and at the present time.

To expect NATO to be equipped to carry out a role in the movement of refugees is probably expecting something that organization is not equipped to carry out. That is probably why there is a UN commission for refugees that has been extremely active, particularly at the border of Macedonia and at the border of Albania.

I am sure that the generosity of the people of Newfoundland will be greatly welcomed and will be reciprocated should refugees decide to come to our shores to settle in Canada.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the debate tonight precludes a discussion on options which were open to us one month ago, including whether to go to war with NATO, whether all avenues at the United Nations had been exhausted and whether the lessons learned in Bosnia are applicable to Kosovo.

Tonight the debate takes place under different circumstances. We have concluded that the United Nations Security Council is impotent. We have seen images of genocide, of columns of refugees, of burning villages and of murdered civilians. We are participants in NATO's bombing actions.

Therefore today the questions facing us are different from a month ago. They are: Why are we there? What are we to achieve? How can we achieve our goals?

We are there because we can no longer watch such atrocities take place, because diplomatic negotiations have been exhausted, because we are members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe which is responsible for security in Europe, and because there is no similar organization in existence in other parts of the world.

We are there to achieve security and peace for the people of Kosovo, to prevent another Bosnia and to bring stability to a troubled region of Europe. We are there to prevent actions of brutality such as those committed by Karadzic and General Mladic in Bosnia.

We are there because a new principle has emerged. The principle says that in the face of genocide there is a humanitarian role for the world community to play that is more important than the principle of sovereignty. It is a paradox that this humanitarian role should take the form of military action, all other avenues having been exhausted. It would have been preferable not to have taken military action, but facing the options available Canada chose the lesser of two evils, military action over allowing the genocide to continue.

What do we wish to achieve through military action? The safe return to their homes of all deportees and displaced persons. The protection and care for those displaced inside Kosovo. The expulsion from Kosovo of Serbian military, police and paramilitary forces through a peacekeeping force, as was the case and is the case in Bosnia, Cyprus and other troubled spots in the world. The apprehension of indicted war criminals is amongst our goals, as well as the defence of Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro in the event of a Serbian attack. Finally, we wish to achieve the improvement of communications from Europe into Kosovo and Serbia in order to inform the population of the reasons and motives for our actions.

Looking beyond the immediate goals there is a role for Canada to play with like-minded nations in search of a mechanism that will provide rules for international intervention in domestic conflict. Canada has experts in preventive diplomacy. Canada has a reputation as a peacebuilder and peacekeeper. Surely we can build a new order to deal with domestic conflict.

We can start with the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Article 8 of that convention is quite explicit. It states “Any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations—as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide”.

It is worth noting that 50 years after the general assembly agreed to the text of the genocide convention the United Nations Security Council established the international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia. The prosecutor, Louise Arbour, is playing a strong leadership role. The tribunal is making good progress and increasingly commands respect.

Those who disagree with Canada's military actions say that Canada is in violation of international law. In reply it must be noted that Yugoslavia, having engaged in acts of genocide, has violated the UN genocide convention.

The time has come to put teeth into that convention, to reinforce the role of the international tribunal in The Hague and to lay the foundations for building adequate international preventive action for the future.

As we saw today in question period, it is only natural that this debate should centre around the question of whether to send troops into Kosovo. Several speakers have raised that question. The answer seems fairly clear if we ask ourselves how returning civilians and the remaining population can be assured the necessary protection and how the removal of the Serbian police and armed forces can be achieved. Having taken the drastic step of intervening with air forces it becomes inevitable and necessary, for the same reasons we decided to risk the lives of Canadian pilots, to send in troops as well. Sending in troops so as to intervene on the ground will become inevitable almost as a law of military gravity.

In 1939 it could be said that western democracies declared war when driven by exasperation, having exhausted all other means. It seems that in 1999 western democracies have become involved in the Balkans having exhausted all other means as well. Had this debate taken place one month ago I would have strongly advised against military intervention and for a greater effort through the general assembly of the United Nations. Today, with the decision of a military intervention having been made, while I find it repugnant to see Canada involved in the act of bombing, it would be even more repugnant at this point in time for Canada to abstain from participating in a severe action aimed at extirpating genocide and racial and ethnic persecution.

I believe that we have drawn the correct lessons from what happened in Bosnia just a few years ago. Hopefully we will succeed in stopping the ugly forces of nationalism in Yugoslavia. Hopefully, when peace is restored, the security of people living in this troubled region of Europe will be assured regardless of ethnic origin, regardless of whether they are a majority or a minority, regardless of whether they are Christian, Muslim or of any other religious belief.

I am glad to share my time with the member for Peterborough.