Charles Caccia

[Interparliamentary Delegation, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House of Commons, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the April session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg from April 20 to 24, 1998, and the report of the delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Paris and Strasbourg from June 17 to 26, 1998.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the question of being ambiguous, the advantage of being a Liberal over being an NDPer is that instead of looking at the world in black and white, we can also detect a number of shades of grey. Therefore sometimes our message is more complex and less simplistic than the message from the NDP.

That is the reason we convince more Canadians to elect us to conduct the business of government than the NDP has so far. There is something about ambiguity that can be attributed to the capacity of seeing more shades of colours than just black and white.

On the second point, NATO, this is a subject of continuous discussion and debate. I do not feel qualified enough to give an adequate reply.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member is asking a hypothetical question. Therefore it is one which we have to treat as such.

Of course the ideal of total disarmament is one we all would want to strive for. But we also know that this is not a reality in the context of present day relations and conflicts in many areas around the globe.

I would imagine that 50 years from now we will be talking of security more in environmental terms than in military terms. I would imagine that in 50 years the concept of security will be quite different from the one of today. I would imagine that the emphasis on arms will decline and perhaps there will be much more emphasis on access to drinking water for instance.

I would imagine that with the doubling of the global population from the present five billion possibly to ten billion, the pressure on worldwide natural resources, and by that I mean fisheries, forestry, water and the like, will be enormous. We will have a completely different security agenda from what we have today.

Until then, I think we have to be realistic and know also that we have a role to play in peacekeeping as it is shaping up in the Balkans and in other parts of the world. For some time to come, arms will be needed sometimes in order to make peace.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well my views on this subject and I do not see the necessity of repeating them in this chamber.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, whether Canada would co-sponsor this resolution is a moot question and probably it is too late for that. I imagine that the resolution has travelled sufficiently ahead to not require Canada's involvement. However, it is certainly a measure which I am sure the Minister of Foreign Affairs looks at favourably and that we should be moving on. Maybe there is a certain hesitance for reasons I do not know, but in principle it seems to me to be a very desirable initiative and worthy of support.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the 20 minutes available to me, there are a few points I will be trying to make.

A number of points can be made in connection with this bill. I will try to touch upon them very briefly in order to finish before question period.

It is obviously an important policy that we are discussing today which has a very fine historical record. We are debating today what was initiated by Mr. Pearson, even before he became the Prime Minister of Canada, and that policy was continued by successive prime ministers, particularly Prime Minister Trudeau, in order to establish the fact that Canada was one of the few nations in the world which voluntarily renounced the use of nuclear power for military purposes.

In other words, there is a tradition of which all parliamentarians can be proud because we have been in the forefront of this policy making process and we continue to be.

It has been established in so many ways and in so many debates, in widespread forums and throughout public opinion, that no nuclear nation has the right nor the justification to use nuclear weapons. The pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very clear in the memories not only of those who lived through that experience, but also of subsequent generations.

There is definitely a will to ensure—and I suppose this is at the root of this treaty—that any measure of that kind will never be adopted again and cause such terrible agony and atrocities on human beings, no matter who is involved.

In connection with this treaty, it must also be said that whenever major nations have conducted nuclear tests they have turned out to be public relations disasters. I can only refresh everyone's memory to the last test conducted by France in the Pacific which clearly provoked and generated a very intensive counter-complaint on the part of public opinion, not only in Europe but in every continent, aimed at dissuading the Government of France of the day from conducting such a test. The same can be said of China, a country that is still conducting tests and which should be discouraged from doing so.

Public opinion certainly does not look kindly on conducting tests of a nuclear nature.

Whenever attempts are made by nations to justify the use of nuclear weapons, their rationale has the weight of zero. There is no rationale and no justification in the light of the evolution of the human culture and of mankind to justify the utilization of nuclear weapons any longer. I am sure it is the intent of this treaty and the hope of the totality of public opinion the world over to consider that any form of nuclear weapon use has come to a conclusion and that there will never again be any attempt to use them.

In that sense, we are glad to have the opportunity in this parliament to endorse Canada's signing and ratifying of this treaty because it gives us an opportunity to express these sentiments.

The next point that one would inevitably like to make is to call on the non-signatories—and there are 43 of those nations—and urge them to do so. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe there are some minor and middle powers that have not yet seen fit to do so.

I am referring to the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cuba, Dominica, Eritrea, Gambia, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Iraq, Kiribati, North Korea, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nauru, Nigeria, Niue, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Zimbabwe and Yugoslavia.

Most of these nations are represented here in Ottawa by embassies or high commissions. Their representatives ought to be called upon by the Government of Canada and urged to do their duty to sign this nuclear test ban treaty without delay. Make the pressure of public opinion felt by them in their desire to be civilized members of the world community.

The next point has to do with the issue of nuclear liability. Our country is due to revisit this issue and to debate the nuclear liability limits we have. We have to determine new thresholds and establish a new approach. This is an overdue piece of legislation which requires parliamentary attention in the interests of the Canadian public.

The next point has to do with the question of Canadian industry notification which is outlined in a briefing note I have here. The legislation we intend to pass will request Canadian industry to report large chemical explosions which could be confused with nuclear explosions. There is a qualifier in this request, namely if possible, prior notification.

I would suggest that prior notification if possible be deleted and notification be made mandatory because if there is good will, there is a way of getting notification without any qualifier to that particular process. It is a good measure and I am sure Canadian industry will want to collaborate. I am referring to those instances when 300 tonnes or more of TNT equivalent material will be used. This idea of prior notification is highly desirable.

The issue of nuclear waste has been raised and we are all painfully aware of the issue. It is one that has been posing a major problem not only to Canada but also to the United States and other jurisdictions where the disposition of nuclear waste is still an unresolved issue. In other words we do not know where to safely put the waste that is generated through nuclear material utilization.

This very important environmental issue also has economic implications. This issue has to be examined whenever we intend to amplify the future use of nuclear power for non-military purposes because the question of waste management and waste disposal has not yet been resolved. It is one that is being tackled at least in low level radiation waste material in southern Ontario by an initiative of the current Minister of the Environment for which we congratulate her. This needs to be expanded of course to other material as well.

I hope that this quick review of items relating to this treaty is helpful. I congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government for this very fine initiative.

[Kosovo, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the unanimous resolution of the House yesterday on Kosovo reflects the sentiments of most Canadians about a human tragedy reminiscent of Bosnia.

Words are inadequate to describe the treatment and persecution of innocent civilians in Kosovo. As the world community watches these events it is increasingly frustrated and believes itself to be impotent.

The situation in Kosovo reminds us of the excesses of nationalism, the dangers posed by people when driven by fanaticism and the extent of barbarism of which the human species is capable.

There is a role to be played by institutions such as the UN, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Any of these could play a fine and useful role in achieving what the people of Kosovo, Serbs and Albanians alike, really want, an end to hostilities, persecution and violence and a return to normality before winter sets in. In other words, a political solution that will restore peace.

[Environment, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, last summer Canadians suffered from increased smog levels causing breathing problems, increased hospital admissions and premature deaths.

Smog results from the burning of oil and coal creating nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds together with other substances which lead to the formation of ground level ozone which is then part of the smog phenomenon. Scientists identify nitrogen oxides from the burning of fossil fuels not only because it forms smog but also because it is a component of acid rain.

We have here a domestic problem as well as an international one because at the Lennox plant in eastern Ontario, Ontario Hydro has not installed the equipment needed to reduce nitrogen oxide pollution. In addition new United States pollution regulations designed to reduce smog could force Ontario Hydro to install emissions abatement equipment if it wants to export power to the United States.

Selective catalytic reduction technology is available to reduce smog and Ontario Hydro should bite the bullet and install it. From an international perspective one must remember that in 1991 Canada and the United States signed the air quality agreement whereby each country is responsible for the effects of air pollution it causes in the other country. Canada and the United States also agreed to consult and deal with any existing transboundary air pollution problems.

Therefore what we do in Canada to reduce nitrogen oxide is desirable not only to improve air quality and prevent health problems but also to make a case to the United States that it should do its part in reducing air pollution. However the reverse also applies.

Last week we learned of a significant announcement by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that 22 eastern United States will be required to cut nitrogen emissions by 28% starting in the year 2003. Such steps could lead to a substantial reduction in smog formation.

Will Canada reciprocate? This is why I am asking the Minister of the Environment what progress has been made to ensure Ontario makes every effort to minimize air pollution through the reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions.

Unfortunately Ontario Hydro has apparently made the decision not to outfit an oil burning power plant in eastern Ontario with the next generation of pollution control devices which permit the reduction of nitrogen oxides.

As I did on March 30, I would like to inquire of the parliamentary secretary whether the Minister of the Environment will ask her Ontario counterpart to intervene with Ontario Hydro and see to it that its decision is reversed; that the nitrogen oxide reducing equipment is installed at the Lennox plant, thus permitting Canada to keep its international commitment; and to reciprocate to the United States Environmental Protection Agency initiative of issuing new tough standards for emission of nitrogen oxides aimed at reducing smog levels as reported today in a national newspaper.

[The Environment, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario environment ministry is allowing dombind to be spread on country roads, a practice that has dangerous consequences.

Testing has shown a dramatic rise in dioxin levels on rural roads treated with dombind, a thick, sticky material made from pulp and paper waste.

It contains toxic substances, including dioxins, which are harmful to aquatic life, soil organisms, cattle and humans.

The Ontario government has issued a licence allowing dombind to be sprayed until next December. The licence to use dombind, otherwise known as the black liquor, should be revoked because of its potential harm to drinking water and the ecosystem.

[The Environment, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the following motion which has been circulated among all party leaders. I move:

That this House take note that over 100 nations will meet in Montreal this month to begin negotiating a new global convention to reduce emissions of persistent organic pollutants.

That the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report (CACAR) shows that POPs are entering the food chain in the Arctic and contaminating country food consumed by Inuit and aboriginal peoples;

Therefore, this House supports the need for a strong and comprehensive global convention to reduce the emissions of persistent organic pollutants, addressing key issues of technologies transfer, capacity and institution building and the need for Canadian aboriginal peoples to take an active role in the negotiations through membership of the Canadian delegation.