Charles Caccia

[Offshore Drilling, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, spilling more than 40 million litres of crude oil. More than 1,900 kilometres of shoreline were polluted and hundreds of thousands of fish, birds and mammals lost their lives.

Scientists say eight species, including killer whales, harbour seals and loons, have failed to recover since this accident.

A U.S. report says oil still remains in many stream beds and is dispersed into waterways when tides change. Although Exxon will pay over $1 billion in penalties, money cannot compensate for the damage to the ecosystem and the loss in wildlife.

The Exxon Valdez lesson is that preventing pollution through strong legislation, good rules and effective enforcement is far better than reacting and curing. Therefore the moratorium on offshore drilling should continue.

[The Senate Of Canada, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has become fashionable to kick an organization which cannot defend itself, namely the upper house of parliament.

Over the decades valuable studies and reports have been produced by our senators who have made a fine contribution to the understanding of issues and the shaping of policies and laws. A special Senate committee on poverty in Canada headed by Senator David Croll is just one example. Upcoming reports include one on the impact of globalization and another on Canada's boreal forest.

Rather than attempting to dismantle a fine Canadian institution, critics could better use their time and energy in becoming acquainted with the good work of the other place and in informing Canadians about the achievements of senators past and present.

With some exceptions, we in the House of Commons believe we have the best possible arrangement for Canada, with one elected and one appointed chamber. It is an ideal balance. Rather than denigrating the Senate we should support it.

[Criminal Code, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a report was published in January 1999 of the Toronto mayor's homelessness action task force, better known as the Golden report. It revealed that in Toronto alone about 3,000 individuals stay in shelters, about 37,000 people are on waiting lists for subsidized social housing and an additional 40,000 are spending more than half of their income on rent or are living in extremely precarious housing conditions. The situation in other Canadian cities is also serious and has been described by municipal leaders as a national disaster.

Some weeks ago I asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services whether the government would be prepared to launch a housing program to meet the needs of the homeless. This issue requires urgent and special attention. There is a great need for federal and provincial funds for the construction of social housing units.

Since the Golden report was released, the picture has not improved. Homeless people in many Canadian cities are a reality. More people have died as a result of cold and exposure, including highly publicized deaths such as the one a short distance from Queen's Park in Toronto.

The government has announced some measures. For example, on December 18 the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced $50 million in addition to the $50 million already committed to the residential rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP, for the fiscal year ending this March. Only $11.6 million of this money is for the most needy homeless. This is not adequate to meet the need.

In 1996 a decision was made to transfer social housing to the provinces. In some provinces, for example in Saskatchewan, the arrangement has worked. In others, such as Ontario, the situation is bad because of the unwillingness of the Ontario government to build social housing.

It must be noted that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can and has played a strong leadership role in the past. Examples are Woodgreen Red Door in Toronto, Metropole Hotel in Vancouver and the Interlodge centre in Montreal.

I urge the federal government tonight to inject new funds into a program for the construction of new social housing units in those provinces that are not taking such initiative themselves, particularly in providing for the homeless.

We all know that in addition to providing shelter, the construction of social housing stimulates the economy, creates jobs and maintains social stability.

Therefore I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight if she can indicate to us whether the government will provide additional funds for the construction of social housing, in particular for the homeless.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lack of knowledge of economic realities on the part of the hon. member and his party that requires further education.

I will put it this way. The Reform Party fails to understand the fact that the debt as the economy expands remains the same and proportionally becomes smaller and smaller as years go by. Therefore the debt is no longer an economic preoccupation.

The preoccupation of the government is the right one, namely by putting its money into health, education, technological development and research to provide the foundation for a positive economic future, not by looking backward in terms of reducing the debt which in proportion to the total national wealth is becoming smaller and smaller.

Liberals believe that the role of the government is to make investments and not to make the banks happy.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. The government has given priority in the budget to health issues. Evidently health is intimately connected to environmental issues. The allocation of $11.5 billion to health is a good foundation on which to build an approach to environmental issues in the next budget.

I regret to note that the Reform Party amendment before us urges the rejection of the allocation of $11.5 billion to health which the budget has launched. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Reform Party is taking such dog in the manger position instead of supporting the very fact that the government is injecting a substantial amount of money into health over the next few years. It should support this measure and it should indicate to its constituents that this is a good move in the right direction.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one cannot believe one's eyes when reading the Reform amendment before us today which urges the House to reject the budget. The members for Calgary Southeast and Medicine Hat are recommending in their amendment a rejection of an increase of $11.5 billion in health care over the next five years.

The leader of the Reform Party, with his amendment, further recommends rejection of the following: Canadian opportunities strategy, $1.8 billion; Canada Foundation for Innovation, $200 million; and National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the National Research Council, $176 million.

The Reform Party with its amendment today also recommends the rejection of $96 million toward the establishment of small communities. It rejects $75 million toward Canada prenatal nutrition programs; $150 million toward technology partnerships; $50 million to expand rural and community health; $795 million for the youth employment fund and the Canada jobs fund; and $42 million for improving management and control of toxic substances. It also rejects some tax relief, some $1.5 billion this year; $2.8 billion next year; and $3.4 billion in the year 2001-02. This is what the Reform Party is advocating today with its amendment on which we will vote shortly.

Having outlined the sham of the Reform Party position with respect to what it would like Canadians to be denied by its amendment, which does not take into account the positive aspects of the budget, one must also say a word of caution on the fanatic belief of the Reform Party in lowering taxes.

When taxes are lowered services are lowered. When taxes are lowered there is a longer wait for services. When taxes are lowered there are poorer services. When taxes are lowered good programs for youth, seniors, underprivileged, housing, et cetera, are cancelled. When taxes are lowered university tuition costs are increased. When taxes are lowered the waiting list for child care is increased. When taxes are lowered laws cannot be properly enforced. Water and air quality, to give an example, suffer as a consequence, and human health does too.

It is foolish to believe that lowering taxes leads to better standards of living. Actually the reverse is the reality and Canada, with its level of taxation, is considered by foreigners the country in which they want to live and visit as shown by our immigration statistics.

A few months ago the national Liberal caucus committee on sustainable development, chaired by the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, recognized the significant relationship between human health and a healthy environment and produced a document in which it says that human health is directly affected by the state of our environment.

The document concluded by quoting the Ontario Medical Association in a press release dated May 13, 1997, in which it said that air pollution was a public health crisis, drawing attention to the fact that it called for stringent action on smog causing emissions and other matters.

In the budget we find that the elements related to health could lead to the paving of the way for the next budget, namely a budget that could possibly take place in February of next year and could be devoted to the environment and sustainable development. When we start dealing with health we inevitably find our way to the roots of good health and proper public health and, therefore, to the basic elements of the way in which we approach the environment.

Having established the possibility of a future budget on the environment it is desirable to provide some input to the government on the question of expanding the concept of environmental protection to embrace the broader idea of sustainable development.

It would be desirable that a budget on the environment and sustainable development would examine the present capacity of the federal government to enforce its own laws and to launch at the same time programs that would permit an improvement in the performance of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, Transport Canada and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the name of public interest.

It would be a budget that would look at Canada's international commitments related to environmental protection and sustainable development. It would look at our implementation of agenda 21 as stemming from Rio, our commitments under the Basel convention, our commitments through the Kyoto agreement on climate change, and determine which are the fiscal and taxation measures that are facilitating our move toward the reduction of climate endangering emissions and the removal of tax incentives that stand in the way.

It would be a budget that would look at the sustainability of our natural resources particularly in the fishery and forests. It would look to our ability to compete through the function of energy efficiency because through a higher energy efficiency than the one we have achieved so far we could also be more competitive.

The next budget of the Government of Canada, if it devotes and focuses its attention on the environment and sustainable development, would be one that would put into practice the document that was published in 1995 under the heading “Turning Talk Into Action”. In that document the Government of Canada expresses the firm belief that our economic health depends on our environmental health. It is believed that the federal government can help shape a better future for all Canadians, a future characterized by sustainable development.

In that same document, which was signed by 21 cabinet ministers and by the Prime Minister, the following statement was made:

This is why we want to play a leadership role in turning sustainable development thinking into action. This is why we are now taking the next step of establishing a framework in which environmental and economic signals point the same way.

We have to achieve that plateau of pointing in the same way. A framework which integrates sustainable development into the workings of the federal government is one this document espouses right across the board. It concludes by saying that the Government of Canada is committed to getting government right by making government greener. “This is our commitment to Canadians”, the document concludes.

I welcome the opportunity of presenting this intervention and expressly hope that the next budget will be on environmental protection and sustainable development.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, approved by parliament in 1988, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act aims at protecting the health of Canadians by preventing pollution through national standards and their enforcement.

The act follows the traditional pattern of federal-provincial relations in which the federal government takes the lead role. A province can implement the act but it must do so at an equal or higher standard.

The act is now being revised in committee. It has become clear that the federal government is best situated to set national standards and to enforce them. We live in times of greater internationalization of environmental policies. We therefore need a strong federal role in standards setting so as to better protect the public from toxic substances and their effects on human health.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for her reply to the member for Charlevoix and also for her fine speech.

The member spoke about the importance of water quality. I wonder whether she would like to elaborate for a moment on her thoughts as to how the quality of water could be improved at the present time.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there may be a long list of items that are not specifically excluded that one would like to have reference to. However, the fact is what the agreement states is what the agreement is all about. If the agreement specifies water in its bottled form and nothing further than that, it seems to be pretty clear and evident.