Charles Caccia

[The Environment, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has signed a United Nations accord on heavy metals, committing Canada to reduce emissions of mercury, cadmium and lead by 50% over eight years.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment and ask her when targets and timetables for the reduction and elimination of these metals in Canada are likely to be announced.

[Housing, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the interim report of the Toronto mayor's homelessness action task force reveals that in Toronto alone about 3,000 individuals stay in shelters. In addition about 37,000 are on a waiting list for subsidized social housing. An additional 40,000 are spending more than half of their income on rent or living in extremely precarious housing.

The situation in other Canadian cities is also serious. It has been described by municipal leaders as “a national disaster”.

Evidently this is an issue requiring urgent and immediate attention. Federal and provincial assistance is needed in the form of funds toward the construction of social housing units so as to provide a home for the homeless.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. I must point out that, with respect to the bill as a whole and to his earlier remarks, I am in complete agreement with him.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Vancouver Island North for being so effective in compressing so many policy statements into one question.

The first one, if I understand it correctly, can perhaps be easily answered by saying that there is from time to time a reorganization of government structures and it is conceivable that one day the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of the Environment will be merged into one. It may well be that one day the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will incorporate certain activities or this particular one and become the promoter of conservation areas. We do not know.

At the present time, the member is quite right in pointing to this tri-dimensional responsibility. In a way it seems to me quite positive that we should see a conservation area as part of our heritage. Let us see whether it works this way. Hopefully it will, but if it does not, we will have to find a better administrative arrangement. It is only through trial and error that this can be established.

On his second question, I am glad to learn that the hon. member of the Reform Party regrets the cuts in federal funding. I thought that his party was passionately behind the idea of cuts in government expenditures. I am not. Perhaps he and I should have lunch more frequently and go over the kinds of cuts we do not want to have. Certain damages are being effected. As to what is the public interest and what are the activities that we would like to see better protected and better promoted, in that sense, he made some very good points. I do not have an easy and quick answer to his concern.

I would imagine that a partial answer would come from his third question, namely that with the lack of funds we ought to rely more and more where possible on the education of the public and all sectors concerned so we get co-operation through the means of a better understanding of the goal that is being pursued with this specific type of legislation.

This specific type of legislation has some very strong provisions for offences and punishment. Under section 24 it is not minor and therefore if this section is really enforced some of the recommendations of the hon. member may be met and satisfied once this legislation becomes operative.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the government on introducing this bill regarding marine conservation areas and to express my particular delight because this is one policy area that all members of the House agree requires very urgent attention.

In congratulating the government I would also like to say that the Secretary of State for Parks earlier today made a very important reference to the commitment Canada made at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and also in signing the biodiversity convention in Rio in 1992. These are two very important points of reference in our participation and role in the global community.

The sooner this bill can be moved ahead the better because it will take time to implement. Today we are discussing legislation which is enabling, but that is all it does. It sets the foundation for the creation of the marine protected areas. That is the extent of the measure. It is the first step on the road toward a very distant goal.

Also I would like to make a note of caution at this point in connection with the ecological integrity of existing parks, such as the case of the Pukaskwa National Park where some threats are being noticed near the proposed marine park in the form of forestry companies which are now asking the Government of Ontario for permission to log closer and closer to the park boundaries.

In other words, the buffer areas around the national parks are in need of being firmly protected. There is, as we all know, a strong connection between our land-based parks and our marine parks. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to protect them both.

It is interesting to note that an agreement signed by Ottawa and the Government of British Columbia in July 1995 provides for the initiation of marine conservation area feasibility studies for two places: the Strait of Georgia and the Queen Charlotte Sound marine regions. One can see from this how long it takes, even when there is joint co-operation between two levels of government. Marine parks cannot be established overnight. This is an undertaking that is time consuming and complex. Marine parks cannot be established by the federal government acting alone, as we all know. It requires the co-operation of provincial governments and very much the support of local communities.

We are engaged in an undertaking which is probably the envy of the whole world. We are moving forward toward the establishment of a Canadian system in the field of marine conservation areas. The momentum is there, but we still have to add more pressure to see real movement.

The next step and perhaps the most difficult one is developing the management plans which will take into account the need for protecting biological diversity, plant and animal, and the need for ensuring that marine national parks are immune from the encroachment of various industrial pursuits and activities. In this way we can ensure that marine conservation areas become effective in achieving the goals of establishing themselves and, of course, at the same time preventing pollution.

Members will note that the preamble of Bill C-48 recognizes the role of the marine ecosystem in maintaining biological diversity. That is the beauty of such a bill. However, I noticed that the idea of pollution prevention does not appear in the preamble of the bill. Perhaps that is something that can be done at the committee level. I will have some other observations to make to this effect later on by way of amendments.

We can ask ourselves at this point whether the establishment of the protected areas proposed in this bill will create small ocean sanctuaries while the rest of the sea and ocean environment rapidly deteriorate, or whether we will have a critical mass, the beginning of marine conservation areas which will set models for the larger sea and ocean surrounding them. This is something I would like to deal with at the end, with future generations in mind.

A few minutes ago the hon. member for Churchill River spoke about the uses of our oceans in a manner consistent with sustainable development. He is right in doing so. He also spoke about pollution prevention. These are themes that I would commend to the parliamentary secretary in the hope that these themes will guide him and his colleagues in committee when it comes to the examination of this bill clause by clause.

The preamble provides a guide for the operation of the bill.

There is a definition of the precautionary principle, however, that is in need of examination because it makes reference to cost effectiveness as being a measure to prevent environmental degradation.

The suggestion I would make at second reading is that it would be desirable to remove the words cost effective because they can be potentially very damaging. It will not be possible to establish parks in conservation areas if we are guided only by cost effectiveness principles. There are many other values that come into play when proceeding with the purpose and the intent of Bill C-48.

Looking at the bill more closely, it seems to me that in the preamble the reference to cost effectiveness ought to be revised by perhaps just leaving the word “effective”. It is less limiting in scope and it still has value. It has merit. But the term “cost” is certainly one that will hamper future generations of administrators and political decision makers.

In examining the bill further, in subclause 4 of clause 9, I find that the minister will have to make agreements with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when establishing a management plan. This could have some negative effects because the goals of the minister in charge of Canadian heritage may differ from the goals of the minister in charge of fisheries and oceans. This limitation in the powers of the minister of heritage will not be very helpful and ought to be removed if we are to allow for a speedy process in the establishment of the conservation areas.

Moving on to prohibitions, on page 7 of the bill, it is a bit disturbing to read clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15. It seems to me that a bill establishing conservation areas ought not to envisage the disposition of dumping. Dumping should not be allowed in marine conservation areas. It is as basic as that. Dumping ought to take place in a safe manner on the land and subclause 14(1) ought to be deleted.

I notice also in clause 13 that, while it is desirable that no person shall explore or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates and other organic matters, there is no reference to fishing. Therefore, the question arises: Is fishing allowed in marine conservation areas? If so, under what restrictions, under what limitations and under which criteria? Obviously fishing in an unlimited fashion could not be allowed in a conservation area. Therefore, clause 13 needs to be clarified.

Clause 14 has some positive features to it, namely that the concurrence of the minister is required before issuing a permit under section 71 of CEPA, provided that the role of the minister will be as stringent and as disciplined as the role performed by the minister in charge of CEPA itself.

When we come to clause 15, permits and authorizations, it seems to me that the superintendent is given too wide powers. The powers given to the superintendent ought to be restricted. The issuing of permits should be examined very closely before the final decision is made at the higher level because this could have a serious and negative impact on the quality of the area that is to be conserved.

Under the regulations, clause 16(1)(a) is a very good one because it is the first and is very strong for the protection of ecosystems and the elements of ecosystems. Clause 16(1)(j) is for the control of the flight of aircraft and so on to prevent disturbances of wildlife et cetera. We all know the reasons and it is good to find it spelled out.

When it comes to clause 16(1)(l), authorizing the dumping of substances and so on, I would say with all due respect that the minister would be well advised in removing this subclause from the regulations. We cannot have a conservation area in which we dump substances. It is almost a contradiction in terms. We have to be very careful. We all know that there is waste and that human waste must be handled, be it industrial, commercial and otherwise, but there must be ways of doing it on the land in a very well controlled fashion so as to facilitate and enhance the quality of the conservation area.

In clause 16(4) there is a provision for air navigation that can only be made on the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of Transport. Here again it should be a decision by the minister alone because of the nature and the purpose of the bill. There has to be some degree of autonomy if we are to pursue this goal seriously and effectively. The Minister of Transport may have very important considerations but sometimes they will have to be modified by the will and intent of the minister himself or herself.

Clause 17 on page 10 indicates that the governor in council may exempt from any provision of the regulations a movement of a ship or aircraft. Why is that necessary? Surely a conservation area where we want to protect the marine quality ought to be also protected from the movement of ship or aircraft. These are not immense areas that cannot be bypassed or circumvented. Surely there are alternative navigational routes.

Here again I am appealing to the parliamentary secretary to add some words such as “under exceptional circumstances” to clause 17(a) or (b), to stress the fact that only under specific conditions the movement of ships and aircraft ought to be allowed. In other words, it would indicate that the legislators are giving a strong signal to the administrators that only under special conditions the movement of ships and aircraft is going to be tolerated.

I notice clause 29 deals with litigation of environmental damage. It reads something along the lines that any person who has management or control of the substance or who causes or contributes to the discharge or deposit, in other words, that could injure animals, fish or plants in the area, shall take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate such degradation or injury.

It seems an element of urgency is missing in this clause. The word immediate ought to be inserted. I do not know how the courts would interpret the word reasonable in this context, whether it would mean mild measures or strong measures. Clause 29(1) deserves to be examined in committee. There may be a way to strengthen this clause by inserting the element of immediacy and urgency.

The exception on page 16 under clause 29(4) is also a bit troublesome. It reads that no measures may be directed to be taken if action is taken under several other acts. Suppose the action taken under several other acts is weaker than what the minister would like it to be in order to protect and conserve these areas. In that case the loser will be the minister and the conservation areas that are being established.

A qualifier should be included in the exception, that if the action taken under such acts as the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, CEPA and so on are equally as strong, then this exception applies. If not, then a specific action ought to be identified so as to properly and effectively protect the affected area. Otherwise by leaving it to the Canada Shipping Act, the condition of the protected area would be in serious danger.

I hope what we are doing here today will be the creation not of sanctuaries under siege, namely of isolated beautiful areas, while the rest of the marine environment degrades and declines in quality. I hope Bill C-48 will create models for proper behaviour in the larger picture of the seas and the oceans.

[North-South Centre Of The Council Of Europe, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe awards a prize to two people for their outstanding achievement in human rights, pluralistic democracy and global solidarity.

This year the north-south prize goes to Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, thus recognizing his work for a treaty banning the production, trade and use of landmines.

The chairman of the north-south centre calls the minister's efforts “an outstanding and very practical contribution to the protection of human rights in a north-south context”.

The other winner is Graca Machel of South Africa for her efforts to protect children from the devastation of war in her native Mozambique.

Tomorrow, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will receive from the President of Portugal in the Portuguese parliament this prestigious award. I invite members of the House to join me in congratulating the award winners, Graca Machel and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[The Homeless, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the interim report of the Toronto mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force reveals that in Toronto every night about 3,000 individuals stay in shelters. In addition, about 37,000 are on a waiting list for subsidized social housing and an additional 40,000 are spending more than half of their income on rent or living in extremely precarious housing.

Furthermore, Toronto shelters provide emergency services as well as shelter for the chronically homeless.

This urgent situation is aggravated by the fact that the Ontario government is downloading responsibility for social housing to municipalities. There is therefore a great need for the federal government to provide funding for people in need of social housing units.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, October 8th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-441, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill becomes law it will protect all endangered species and their habitat in Canada, regardless of where they live, including aquatic species and migratory birds. It will identify species at risk and the factors that threaten them and their habitat.

This bill will require the Minister of the Environment to prepare a recovery plan. It will make it an offence to harm, disturb or kill endangered species or their habitat. This bill will give appropriate powers to designated persons to conduct inspections and enforce the law. It will allow citizens to bring investigations of suspected threats to an endangered specie or its habitat.

This bill would apply to provincial as well as federal lands unless a province decides to pass mirror legislation.

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

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could give us the benefit of his views as to the role of the security council, following the rather cogent and learned intervention by the member for Rosedale who seemed to place great importance on the security council's playing a role in Kosovo and overcoming the difficulties it faces internally with respect to the possibility that Russia would impose a veto on any resolution.

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the government's motion tonight is timely, appropriate and sound.

Each member who has spoken before me has supported the motion of the foreign affairs minister in his call to resolve the conflict, promote a political settlement for Kosovo and facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance to refugees.

In Kosovo we face a very complex situation for historic and symbolic reasons. It was here I learned that in 1389 the Serbs fought their battle of the Kosovo polie; namely, the field of Kosovo battle against the Turks. It was in Kosovo that the church of Serbia was born. It is here we find the symbolic values the Serbs attribute to Kosovo, to their religious ground, virtually their holy land or the equivalent of it.

However, against this background it must also be said that although the Serbs pretend to be civilized members of the world community, they have failed miserably to prove themselves. For weeks and months now we have witnessed a situation to which we cannot remain indifferent despite the distances and the ocean between Europe and us. The suffering is immense, the atrocities unbearable and the crimes unforgivable.

As members of the human species we must resolve this conflict and find ways to resolve it soon. We must push for a political settlement. We must provide humanitarian assistance to the 300,000 displaced people and the 30,000 refugees.

Several speakers have referred to a NATO intervention. I hope we will not be so naive as to believe that NATO air attacks will solve the problem. They will only strengthen the already rigid and unbearable position taken by the Serbs. Instead, NATO ground forces to protect the entire civilian population would represent the first necessary step.

In that context let us have no elusion. The presence of troops to protect the population may be required for years. Kosovo could turn out to be another Cypress and the presence of troops, be they NATO or the United Nations, may be necessary for many decades to come.

The Council of Europe, where this parliament has, through the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, observer status, produced a political report prepared by Andras Bargony of Hungary. It is entitled “Crisis in Kosovo and the situation in the federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. The recommendations of the report, adopted two weeks ago by the Assembly of the Council of Europe, include the following elements considered as essential by European parliamentarians in reaching a lasting peaceful solution to the crisis.

The first element is to guarantee the security of all people living in Kosovo, to be achieved through the withdrawal of the Serbian security forces, the disarmament of armed groups of ethnic Albanians and the deployment of an international peace force.

The second is to give a new political status to Kosovo based on a high level of autonomy within the Yugoslav federation, based on the prerogatives the province enjoyed according to the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, adapted of course to the new situation and, where necessary, enlarged.

Thirdly, such status would include the highest possible form of self-government for Kosovo in lawmaking, the executive, the judiciary, public order, economy, education and culture with respect to the rights of Serbs and other minorities living in Kosovo, and finally the direct participation of Kosovo representatives in federal institutions and also through the adoption of democratic reforms.

The fourth element is to give international guarantees, ensuring respect for the future agreement and preventing any attempts to return to the status quo or to secede.

The final element is to introduce democratic reforms implemented through the federal Republic of Yugoslavia, guaranteeing full compliance with the Council of Europe standards concerning the functioning of a democratic political system, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and the rights of national minorities, notably in Kosovo, in Vojvodina and in Sanjak.

It seems to me that these are very sensible proposals made by the Council of Europe, by the assembly and by our European colleagues. The assembly also considered that in the absence of a clear and unequivocal position of the international community the political and military pressure exerted on the two sides to engage in negotiations would remain largely unaffected.

Therefore, it would seem that a clear and unequivocal position of the international community is urgently needed. The future status of Kosovo must be placed at the top of the international agenda. That is quite clear now. The participation of all interested parties, governments and relevant international bodies is essential.

I am sure that everyone will agree tonight that we must not fail the people of Kosovo. We must prove that the international community can intervene in the name of humanity. It is high time that we do so.