Charles Caccia

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for having raised again the question of NAFTA and water.

I could allege that the moon is made of Gorgonzola and ask for a memorandum of understanding that it be disclaimed. Having read several times the portion of the NAFTA that covers water, I am fully satisfied that the only reference in that section is to bottled water. If there are certain business interests in the United States that wish to allege the contrary that is their business.

However, I do not think we should fall into the trap of those who claim that assumption in the NAFTA because we just reinforce that kind of notion. The text is clear. It refers only to bottled water. There is no way Canada would go for any agreement in the NAFTA arrangement that would include water. I do not think any government in its right mind would ever agree to that.

Therefore I must confirm what I indicated earlier. This motion ought to be disallowed and should not be given new life in this parliament because it just gives credence to those outside parliament who would like people to believe that water is included in NAFTA.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me only fair to say at this point in the debate that there seems to be fairly unanimous consent and support for the motion today, particularly on the part of those who believe in a role by the Government of Canada in protecting the interest of Canadians in all provinces.

There seems to be, however, some confusion in connection with the alleged link between water and NAFTA. Some speakers who preceded me seemed to labour under the impression that water is in the NAFTA. It might be desirable therefore to dispel this notion once and for all because it only damages Canada's position vis-à-vis the United States and the NAFTA partners.

There is no reference to water in NAFTA except for bottled water. The sooner we put our thinking to rest on this matter the better, so that we do not raise in the House the notion that water is in the NAFTA. It is only in the form of bottled water. Anyone who can read and takes the trouble to read that portion of the NAFTA will see for himself or herself that is the extent to which water is mentioned in that agreement.

Therefore any debate on the motion which brings in through the back door the impression that we have to deal with the NAFTA only tends in the long term, and even in the short term, for that matter, to weaken Canada's position because certainly what is said in parliament has a certain weight.

The motion, which is highly laudable, puts the emphasis on matters related to trade and that is where the pressures are coming from at the present time. It is refreshing, however, to read what the British Columbia Wildlife Federation wrote some 15 years ago as quoted in the report entitled “Currents of Change”, the final report of the inquiry on federal water policy, a commission launched under the Trudeau government in 1983. It says:

The issue is much broader than the consideration of habitat for fish, more than irrigation or energy development, more than jobs or recreation. It is fundamental to the overall human condition.

This is how water is described. It is important to amplify the point of the B.C. Wildlife Federation because it is so well put.

There is also the issue of how Canadians relate to water. We have heard some very passionate interventions this morning on this subject and I would like to add one from the “Currents of Change” report on page 130 where it reads:

Water evokes special feelings among Canadians. On the surface it appears unreasonable to object to exporting a renewable resource like water while supporting exports of non-renewable resources like minerals, coal and natural gas. The explanation lies, at least in part, in the special heritage value that many Canadians attach to our water resources.

I underline the word heritage because it is extremely important. Those were inspired words by Mr. Pearse who was the head of that commission, who reported to the Conservative government in 1985, and whose recommendations are still waiting for action.

Mr. Pearse at that time recommended a full range of water related policy initiatives including drinking water safety, research programs, intergovernmental arrangements and water exports.

The central message of the inquiry's report, it must be said at this point of the discussion, in the words of Peter Pearse was:

We must protect water as a key to a healthy environment and manage what we use efficiently as an economic resource.

We certainly can say that a lot of time has gone by. Members of the opposition have already stressed that point. We are now at the point where a decision must be made in this respect, not only within the confines of the motion but also going beyond so as to encompass water quality, conservation and the concept of security.

Security needs to be redefined. We have to move gradually away from a concept that limits itself to military security to one that is related to natural resources. Certainly water plays a major role in providing the sense of security that any society needs for its present and future.

Today as we speak we can recite a number of applications on water exports that have been proposed in recent months: one in Ontario, one in British Columbia and very recently one in Newfoundland. Evidently we have to take action at the federal level and give the necessary leadership.

As recently as last July an interdepartmental panel of officers representing foreign affairs and Environment Canada debated in Toronto the matter of water. A considerable amount of work has been going on within departments. Now it is a matter that will have to emerge at the political level.

In the ultimate, as the motion suggests, it will have to be a decision that will assert the sovereign right of Canadians. Therefore parliament and the Government of Canada must play a leading role.

The question of quality of water deserves to be given greater emphasis than so far. The confidence of Canadians in drinking water has over recent years declined as demonstrated by the increased sales of water filters, bottled water and the like. There is an impression which has not been dispelled to the effect that the quality of water is not as high as it used to be. Therefore we have to pay attention to that fact either by restoring confidence or by taking measures to improve the quality of municipal water as provided by municipal suppliers.

The addition of chlorine is an issue that emerges from time to time in reports by the International Joint Commission. In one of its reports three years ago it indicated its concern about that particular substance as it affects human health. Evidently we are dealing with a very difficult issue because we all know the advantages of the use of chlorine in disinfecting water. Nevertheless we have signals to which we have to pay attention if our major concern, as I am sure it is for everybody in the House, is for the quality and the health aspect of water.

I have been given an indication that I am splitting time with the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford. Therefore I will comply with that request in the assumption that my time is up.

[Transit Passes, February 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the recommendation of the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys is praiseworthy. It has been proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities each year since 1990, imagine. It has also been made in two reports of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

It was first proposed in the 1995 report “Keeping a Promise: Towards a Sustainable Budget”. We heard a number of witnesses on the question of transit passes which was one topic of discussion before the committee. Witnesses noted that levelling the playing field in the transportation sector by making transit passes a tax free benefit would encourage employees to use public transit. The result would be reduced energy consumption, decreased atmospheric pollution and reduced traffic congestion.

In 1997 the same committee produced the report “Kyoto and Beyond: Meeting the Climate Change Challenge”. One recommendation of the committee was to let Finance Canada conduct a comprehensive study of the fiscal and regulatory tools available to the federal government to encourage a shift to public transit, including the provision that employer provided transit passes be considered a tax free benefit. So far this recommendation seems to have been ignored.

In 1998 a request to the finance department to provide an accounting of the total value of benefits currently provided through employer provided parking was referred to the Department of National Revenue. However, Revenue Canada was unable to provide the data. In other words we are in the unfortunate position of not knowing how many people take advantage of tax free parking benefits.

Nevertheless both the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada argue that by offering the benefit to other commuters there is a negative impact on the tax base, as we heard earlier from the distinguished parliamentary secretary.

We do know that social, environmental and equity benefits would arise from implementing the transit pass tax exemption. We also know there is widespread support for the measure, as indicated already by other members. The Amalgamated Transit Union has organized a campaign. Support comes from sources so diverse as the city of Saskatoon, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens, Pollution Probe, the Lung Association of Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the city of Toronto, and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

This motion is well timed and deserves the support of this House and the Government of Canada, considering the commitment made in Kyoto by the Government of Canada. The parliamentary secretary's arguments are worth examining but the basic thrust of this motion reflects widespread support across the country. Therefore we must conclude it is time for Ottawa to act.

[The Environment, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, because of the hour I will make only some brief remarks in thanking hon. colleagues for their interventions and input today. The members for Lethbridge, Yukon and Fundy—Royal brought out a number of additional issues and dimensions which are important. I concur with them that we should have an approach which is as broad as possible in resolving the question of pollution.

The member for Lethbridge dwelt on the question of contaminated lands. His observations reflect the reality there, as did those of the member for Yukon when referring to over 200 national defence sites that have been abandoned.

I have some difficulty in understanding completely the logic of the member for Lethbridge. He said that he and his party cannot support this motion because it is not comprehensive enough and does not deal with all aspects of the issue that we are facing, not only on the POPs but also the contaminated lands and related issues. It seems to me that there is a choice between incremental action and supporting any possible motion that moves the agenda forward or no action at all. It escapes my ability to follow the logic of the Reform Party in this respect, and I must say in other respects also.

I would like to thank the member for Yukon for her very kind remarks and friendly suggestions. She certainly brought to our attention the situation that is now being faced in the north, which probably was the same situation faced in the south several decades ago. We should draw some lessons from what the northerners are telling us as to what they are observing so that we can see the necessity in prevention and that the north retains its pristine quality. Possibly through that lesson we can regain the lost ground in the south.

I also thank the member for Fundy—Royal who got a little carried away with partisan remarks which is understandable. He felt it was necessary to put on record the achievements of the previous government. We have not forgotten that record. He certainly reinforced the theme of this motion and provided a helpful observation which I will take very seriously.

I thank the parliamentary secretary for the good news she gave the House and for emphasizing the importance of co-operation in achieving something which, because of its international nature, is extremely difficult. Canada has developed a skill for which we are highly respected abroad, namely the capacity to bring diverging interests together in the pursuit of the environmental agenda.

[The Environment, December 4th, 1998]

moved:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should act decisively, in response to the evidence in the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report, to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.

Madam Speaker, members may ask why we are debating this motion. The brief answer is that certain harmful polluting substances, which travel long distances, are landing in the Arctic. The Government of Canada is constructively working with other governments in arriving at agreements to reduce these polluting substances, to protect human health, the environment, wildlife and people living in the Arctic.

The name of these polluting substances is POPs. They are pesticides used in agriculture, chemicals such as PCBs, products such as chlorinated dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons otherwise known as PAHs, resulting from fossil fuel combustion, the burning and processing of wood and other materials.

One might ask why the signature on the protocol of persistent organic pollutants or POPs is important and urgent. Because 16 nations are required to ratify the protocol so that the agreement to reduce organic pollutants goes into effect. I am told it will be open for signature by interested nations after December 21, 1998.

The situation in the Arctic is described in the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report which was produced last year.

The report states that persistent organic pollutants from sources outside Canada and outside the Arctic have been transported to the Arctic by air. These pollutants find their way into the Arctic food chain and accumulate in traditional aboriginal foods. As a result, high levels of the pesticides toxaphene and chlordane have been found in beluga muktoq and seal meat. In many cases, our Inuit people who eat even a very small quantity of traditional sources of meat may ingest more than what Health Canada considers tolerable.

It is important to note that neither toxaphene nor chlordane is used in Canada.

In that report we find also that there are disturbing measurements of PCBs in the breast milk of Inuit women which are now among the highest levels in the world. In the cases of 40% and over of Inuit women, the PCB in their blood is up to five times the level of concern prescribed by the Department of Health.

Clearly, human health depends on what we do about pollutants and in the case of the Arctic, about these POPs. In southern Canada, Professor Jules Blais of the University of Ottawa whose research appeared in the journal Nature in October 1998 reports disturbing quantities of pesticides transported by air to the Rocky Mountains. In the Columbia ice fields and at Lake Louise, Professor Blais found traces of the prairie crop insecticide, lindane; endosulphan, a popular insect killer used in eastern Canada; chlordane, a banned termite terminator; and even DDT, a pesticide banned in Canada but still in use in China, in Mexico and in other countries.

There are also reports related to Denver and Mexico City. People may face a problem with respect to their drinking water from snow melts on mountains more than 3,000 metres high where there may be even greater accumulation of pollutants than found in our Rockies. Scientists in Switzerland have also expressed alarm because a number of Swiss towns also take their water from lakes high in the mountains.

All this points to the problems posed by these POPs as faced by people and governments in different continents.

For the Government of Canada, it therefore becomes necessary to control the release of these POPs that we still produce at home, such as dioxins and furans. As long as we continue to produce them, POPs will enter the ecosystem and the food chain.

The more we pollute, the higher price we pay in terms of health care costs. Many POPs we are told cause endocrine system defects, immune system dysfunction, reproductive abnormalities and developmental problems in humans. Some POPs can induce or promote cancers. Here at home once we clean our own backyard, then of course we can urge our neighbours to clean up theirs.

Ratifying the POPs protocol becomes desirable so that other countries know we are serious about the reduction of these organic pollutants.

We need to take a lead role in the implementation of the new global agreement. A meeting of international experts on organic pollutants held in Vancouver in 1995 produced recommendations. The agreement I am referring to is the one that UNEP, the United Nations environment program, produced to ensure that firm targets and timetables are set for the elimination of these POPs around the globe.

It will take a great deal of political will to convince developing countries of the long term human health benefits of eliminating POPs. It will also require significant financial resources to help those countries to change their processes and practices in agriculture and pest management.

Apparently the World Bank and other international lenders, as a condition for giving financial aid, often force farmers in developing countries to use pesticides containing POPs. This policy led to a meeting in Vancouver three years ago when international experts got together and came up with the following recommendations.

One, that international and national banking practices should promote safe alternatives to and the reduction and elimination of POPs.

Two, that incentives for the use of safer pesticides and chemicals be offered to communities in developing nations in order to reduce and eliminate POPs.

Three, that there be an enforcement of stricter limits on pesticide residue on food and that countries be discouraged from using POPs in agriculture.

Four, that human and ecological health be taken into account when making decisions related to trade and investment.

The importance of addressing the human health implications in the Arctic resulting from the long range transport of organic pollutants is proven by the northern contaminants program. This will be funded in Canada for a further five years by the Government of Canada, in the amount of $6 million each year, for a total of $30 million.

The elimination of these organic pollutants also points to the need to take action in Canada on several fronts.

First, we must continue to do research on the effects of POPs. Second, we must enact strong legislation to eliminate and prevent POPs and enforce it. Third, we must regulate industry efficiently and prevent damage to human health. Fourth, we must ban substances that are dangerous to human health and, where certain substances cannot be banned, use pollution prevention policies.

We are mindful of the fact that there are over 23,000 substances registered for use in Canada. So far only a handful have been banned. Thousands of others still need to be reviewed to determine if they are toxic and plans for their management, control and elimination still are to be developed.

There is a need to implement a policy whereby health is given priority over the economy because, as we are discovering, over the long term a healthy society and a healthy environment ensure the foundation for a healthy economy. This is the reason we as parliamentarians are interested in promoting and accelerating treaties which reduce international pollution.

International organic pollutants, POPs, must be seen as a threat to health and the economy. Pollutants from faraway places can and do harm us. Hence, there is a necessity for agreements between governments so as to ensure good economic and environmental behaviour among nations.

For parliamentarians there is a role to play through the Arctic Council. There are parliamentary colleagues in Scandinavia, the U.S.A. and Russia interested in preventing pollution. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis and I discovered this fact several years ago and have at every opportunity advanced the cause of pollution prevention and reduction through the signature of protocols. In the case of organic pollutants, we have done so in Iqaluit, in Salekhard, Russia and at the Council of Europe.

Next year we intend to intensify our efforts in Brussels on the occasion of a meeting of the Arctic Council and again in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe.

I conclude in urging colleagues in this House to speak forcefully in favour of pollution reduction and prevention and any initiative that can take us toward the reduction and virtual elimination of pollutants which are so damaging to human health, the economy and the environment.

As the population on this globe grows and human activities intensify, it is becoming evident that we have to accelerate the process of pollution reduction and, where possible, pollution prevention through changes in industrial processes and practices if we are to make life on this planet possible in the long run.

The issue of POPs is a classic example of international interdependence. The pollutants we let into the atmosphere can harm people in distant places and the pollutants emitted in distant places harm us. We have to renew the strong will which guided us in the seventies and the eighties and make a concerted new effort toward the goal of a pollution free society. Today that is what this debate on POPs is all about.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, which took part in a meeting of the Council of Europe held in Strasbourg, from September 21 to 25, 1998.

[Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, you may recall that on November 5 the Minister of the Environment told the House that the protocol, the agreement for the reduction and elimination of mercury and other heavy metals, as signed in Aarhus, Denmark earlier this year will be ratified by Canada by the end of the year. The minister on that occasion also announced that in Canada, mercury emissions have been reduced by 64% in the last decade or so. The agreement in Aarhus, Denmark requires however only a 50% reduction based on 1990 levels.

Unlike iron and calcium, mercury serves no function in humans. It is a heavy metal and a persistent, highly toxic substance to be found in the food chain. It must be noted that while mercury occurs in nature as an element that can be found in water, air and land, human activities increase the presence of mercury in the environment to the point that human and ecosystem health are at risk.

As a result, in six provinces and the territories, health advisories have been issued warning of the dangers of consuming mercury contaminated fish. In addition, it has been found that some wildlife species with high mercury levels in their blood have reproductive problems.

A recent study by Environment Canada found that loons have problems with nesting and raising their young because of high mercury levels in their blood. The study also found that mercury levels in loons increase from west to east, presumably because of industrial activities concentrated in eastern North America. Evidently, industrial activities throughout North America increase mercury levels in the environment and in wildlife.

In the Arctic, recent samples of ringed seal and beluga whale show higher concentrations and higher rates of accumulation of mercury than the samples taken in the 1970s and 1980s.

One major source of mercury is from the burning of coal for power generation. Ontario Hydro, following the decommissioning of nuclear reactors intends to meet short term power needs by using coal-fired power plants. By burning more coal, more mercury is released in the air.

In Ontario between 2.7 tonnes and 3.4 tonnes of mercury are released to the atmosphere each year because of human activities. Up to 2.5 tonnes are released into the Great Lakes waters annually.

It is important to note that the national pollutant release inventory is of limited help in revealing how much mercury each company or operation releases because it reports only when the process, manufacture or other use involves 10 tonnes of mercury or more.

Evidently while we must applaud the protocol, a reduction of 50% or even 64% is far from adequate. As in the case of Denmark where mercury is banned or about to be banned, we must protect the public with a complete ban of mercury emissions resulting from human activity.

I therefore ask the minister whether it is the intent of the government either to ban mercury emissions or to introduce regulations that will prevent mercury pollution entirely.

[Housing, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as winter sets in and the condition of the homeless grows more serious and urgent in Canada's urban centres, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Would the government convene a meeting of interested parties, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, for the purpose of launching an adequate program for the homeless for this winter and for the years ahead?

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on May 15 I asked the Minister of the Environment whether she plans to introduce legislation this fall to ban water exports.

Water is our most important natural resource. A price cannot be put on the value of fresh water to people, plants, animals and ecosystems.

Some people say we have a limitless supply of water but the fact is there is a limit to how much we can use and abuse. Once we contaminate the quality of water, as we have done in the Niagara River, the cost of replacement is high. It can come at the expense of another watershed. We have learned that water is a resource which must be treated carefully.

In 1983 the Liberal government commissioned a federal inquiry on water policy. Two years later inquiry chair Peter Pearse and his fellow commissioners recommended a full range of water related policy initiatives including drinking water, safety, research programs, intergovernmental arrangements and water export.

The central message of the inquiry's report, in the words of Peter Pearse, was:

We must protect water as a key to a healthy environment, and manage what we use efficiently as an economic resource.

On the issue of water exports the Pearse report recommended the federal government adopt legislation setting out clear criteria for approving or rejecting water export proposals to ensure that Canadian economic, political and environmental interests would be protected. According to Peter Pearse:

Since the late 1980s, the federal government's handling of this issue has been unhelpful. Although it declared its intention to adopt our proposal for legislation to enable it to regulate exports, it did not do so. Instead, it assigned the question to the interdepartmental legislative review group in 1989, which never reported.

It has been 14 years since the Pearse report. We are still waiting for a water export policy and for a comprehensive water policy.

In the vacuum created by the absence of a comprehensive policy and in the absence of a federal law banning the export of water came the application last spring by the Nova Group in northern Ontario for a permit to take water.

In March the Government of Ontario, in one of its frequent moments of galloping madness, granted the permit to take up to 10 million litres per day. At the time the government said it had no choice but to issue the permit, saying “you can get a permit to draw water in Ontario as long as it doesn't cause any significant environmental damage”.

Then the Ontario government a little later came to its senses and decided to cancel the permit. Consequently the Nova Group appealed the decision to the Ontario Environmental Assessment and Appeal Board. While a number of public interest groups from the U.S. and Canada will be represented, it is sad to note that the federal government is not represented at the hearings.

Going back to July it is important to note that at the panel convened in Toronto by the ministers of the environment and foreign affairs, panellists from all sectors of society agreed that interbasin diversions, domestic or transboundary, should not be undertaken because of the serious environmental consequences.

We are now at the end of 1998. We still face a legislative gap crying out to be filled. We know there is broad support for the gap to be filled. We know we can expect proposals in future for water exports. Therefore I am again asking the minister when legislation will be introduced banning water exports.

[Privilege, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Very briefly it boils down to this.

On November 5 in the House the member for Athabasca made a statement to the effect that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and I have accused Health Canada, quoting from Hansard , “of incompetence, negligence and using Canadians as guinea pigs regarding the use of the manganese gasoline additive MMT”.

I categorically deny having made such a statement. To the best of my knowledge also the member for Lac-Saint-Louis did not. Therefore I urge the member for Athabasca to rise in the House and retract that statement.