Charles Caccia

[Environment, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is prone to creating confusion and even fearmongering on climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases.

In reality, greenhouse gas reduction means good business. One of the first steps is to stabilize emissions in Canada by cancelling costly and perverse subsidies, by switching to natural gas wherever possible, by capping industrial emissions and putting in place a system of tradable emissions permits, by improving fuel efficiency for new vehicles, and by launching a national program aimed at energy efficiency.

These steps will make Canada a world leader in energy efficiency. These steps will also create jobs, increase revenues and reduce costs.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think that everybody in the House today would agree with the hon. member that it is time to move ahead and with speed.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question which relates to joint reviews.

In reading that passage of the bill I was struck by its broad scope and its imaginative approach. I think it can only lead to very positive results. Therefore, my answer is in the affirmative.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating the minister for introducing Bill C-6. It is a very fine Liberal initiative in the tradition of modern Liberal thinking. It will go a long way in the long overdue recognition of the rights of our native people. It will provide for a land claims agreement which we have all wished would see the light of day and finally the day has come.

Bill C-6 would implement the terms of the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement as well as the Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement. This is to be done in terms of land use planning and land and water management. Also it takes into account environmental impact review as to the implications of certain specific proposals. This is a long overdue initiative as the land claim agreement in question deserves full implementation as soon as possible.

There are a number of important issues that should receive the attention of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I would like to indicate a few through this intervention.

The committee could study ways and means to ensure that there is an integrated system of management of land use planning, land and water management and environmental impact assessment. This is the first and most important consideration if the bill is to live up to the considerations and goals relating to sustainable development.

The second point is the committee would be very wise in examining the effect of this bill on the quality and type of environmental assessment that will be done in the Mackenzie Valley. It might be worthwhile noting that the Mackenzie Valley covers quite a wide territory. It includes everything north of 60, south of the Inuvialuit claims area, east of the Yukon border and west of the Nunavut settlement area. It is a huge area.

At present the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act applies in much of the land north of 60. Together with other existing and proposed regimes we could over time end up with a patchwork of environmental assessment regimes as they apply in the north. That is something we would like to prevent.

The existing regimes include in addition to the federal act, the process under way under the Inuvialuit land claims agreement process and the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. The proposed regimes include the Yukon development assessment process, better known as DAP, and the process to be administered by the Nunavut impact review board, plus the framework proposed in part 5 of this bill.

Before such a patchwork is to emerge, it might be worthwhile for the committee to examine certain questions. For instance is the system which is currently in place working? Will the proposed additional regimes improve the situation? Will each of the new regimes address transboundary, international and environmental impacts? A cursory review of clause 141 of the bill which is entitled “Transregional and External Developments” seems to indicate the need for stronger wording so as to ensure a comprehensive review of potential effects whenever they may occur.

Mandatory rather than permissive language will also make for greater certainty of the process to be followed which is in the interests of all participants. This is a point of discussion in almost every piece of legislation relating to the environment. They are more effective when mandatory rather than permissive language is used.

The fourth point has to do with the following question. Is there adequate provision in the bill for participant funding in environmental assessment? Participant funding is a critical component for decision making because it requires meaningful public participation. Members of the public do bring important contributions to the discussion of what comprises their health and what effects there may be on the environment of an area where industrial development is proposed. In addition, the public can bring important input to whether there are health and environmental trade-offs for the development that is being proposed.

Canada has many environmental assessment regimes. The federal act provides for funding for participants. We are very proud of that fact. This funding was introduced by Liberal legislation some years ago.

I would like to add that the co-management bodies established under this bill will constitute institutions of government. Therefore, it will be essential for parliamentarians to become involved. This will require thorough committee reviews. Of course, the availability of funding for participants is very essential. With that thought in mind, might I say that the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee would be well advised to travel to the northern communities to hear the views, which I am sure are diverse, on this bill.

To save time in this debate, because this is a fine measure which ought to be given speedy passage, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for introducing the bill. I would reiterate my suggestions for the committee, namely to consider how it can ensure that environmental assessment, as well as land and water management, are conducted in accordance with the principle of sustainable development as outlined in the Brundtland report entitled “Our Common Future”. In doing so we will achieve something of lasting value for many generations to come.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, after advocating and working hard for years, Canada was one of the first nations to sign the law of the sea in 1982 yet we still have to ratify it. Meanwhile fish stocks all over the world, including cod on our east coast and salmon on the west coast, have been decimated by overfishing.

The government has committed in the red book to ratify. The joint committee reviewing Canadian foreign policy recommended ratification in its 1994 report. In 1994 and 1995 the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the House that ratification was imminent. But on April 29, 1996 the Minister of Foreign Affairs linked the ratification of the law of the sea convention to the precondition of ratifying another agreement on highly migratory and straddling fish stocks.

It seems to me that this tactic is flawed because the ratification of the law of the sea is the necessary first step to restore Canada's credibility. Once our credibility is restored, the straddling stock agreement may gather the momentum it is lacking now.

Here are the reasons in favour of ratifying the law of the sea first:

One, the law of the sea contains strong provisions for marine and fishery conservation that are far reaching, including provisions that set the stage for our efforts to conserve straddling stocks.

Two, the law of the sea contains sustainability principles and their application to oceans, such as the precautionary principle; the polluter pays principle; the principle of adjacency, which is the one that communities closest to the resource have not only a right to the resource, but also an obligation to nurture it.

Three, at present because we have not yet ratified the law of the sea, Canada is left out of important organizations and talks related to fisheries management and conservation.

We all know there are two major threats to marine ecosystems. One is overfishing and the other is the impact of human activities such as oil spills, destruction of estuaries and coastal zones, industrial air pollution, and the production of nutrients, pesticides and other materials that run off the land and pollute the oceans. The law of the sea deals with these problems whereas the agreement on straddling stocks deals with them only incidentally.

In addition, article 66 of the law of the sea sets out the state of origin concept for anadromous species, which Canada effectively argued in the recent west coast dispute. Interestingly, Alaska is now complaining about Russian interception of Alaska bound salmon using the same argument. This opens new avenues for Canada to generate the support of other nations also worried about interception and honouring quotas.

To conclude, it is worth mentioning that at the recent summit of the sea conference in St. John's, Newfoundland, participants drafted the summit of the sea challenge which included, as one may guess, a call on the Government of Canada to ratify the law of the sea.

On October 1, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when Canada will ratify the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Unfortunately he did not have time to complete his answer. Tonight I hope it is a positive one. The time has come for Canada finally to ratify the law of the sea, considering the fact that 1998 is the international year of the ocean.

[Environment, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, based on questions, the Leader of the Official Opposition does not understand the climate change issue and is creating unnecessary anxiety. This can be a win-win issue.

We can reduce emissions by shifting to greater use of cleaner natural gas. We can reduce emissions by making buildings energy efficient. We can reduce emissions by developing energy efficient transportation policies. We can reduce emissions and reduce production costs through energy efficiency. We can reduce emissions and create jobs through the development of alternative and renewable energies. We can reduce emissions by removing costly subsidies for oil sands.

Over 2,000 leading Canadian and American economists have declared there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the costs.

We can reap considerable economic benefits and help reverse global warming. We can control emissions and help clear the air without slowing our economy. It takes imagination and determination. In Canada we have a lot of both.

[Fisheries, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what is the real cause of dwindling fish stocks? Is it greedy seals or is it overfishing?

Until a few days ago fisheries officers were engaged in a seal cull in British Columbia. The purpose of the cull was said to be saving endangered stocks of chinook salmon, cutthroat trout and steelheads.

Is killing seals a desirable solution or should we instead sustain the fishery? Should we harvest more than nature can replace or instead stay within the limits imposed by nature?

To achieve sustainable development we need long term sustainable solutions. The recovery of an endangered species does not justify the destruction of another species.

The problem lies not with seals but with us.

[Candu Mox, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian nuclear industry's CANDU MOX proposal would involve the importation of up to 150 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium from Russia and the U.S.

Canada would mix the plutonium with uranium oxide for use as nuclear reactor fuel. Canada would then be responsible for the “disposition” of the spent fuel. Since plutonium with its immense radioactive longevity and carcinogenic qualities cannot be disposed of, “disposition” is used to mean moving plutonium from one place to another without actually eliminating its danger. If implemented, this initiative would also impose high long term costs on Canadians.

I therefore urge the government to reconsider its support for the Candu MOX initiative and instead have Russia and the United States dispose of their own plutonium within their national boundaries.

[Law Of The Sea, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in 1982 Canada was one of the first nations to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When will Canada ratify this convention and thus keep a red book promise and take an important step toward marine and fishery conservation?

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister for International Trade to confirm that he would not sign the multilateral agreement on investment being negotiated at the OECD unless the Canadian government got exemptions for job creation and other key sectors of great significance to Canada, such as sovereignty over cultural institutions and our natural resources.

My question arose from the fact that the multilateral agreement on investment builds on NAFTA and, like NAFTA, has as its goal the creation of a level playing field for investors from outside Canada.

I am pleased to hear that the government plans to set conditions on foreign investment because, as I understand the agreement, only those sectors that are explicitly excluded by a country are exempt from the national treatment which would be accorded foreign investors under the proposed agreement. Consequently, Canada must negotiate exemptions for certain sectors, among them job creation, control over our natural resources, water, which is of particular interest to western Canada, energy, and possibly investments that would affect our food security.

NAFTA already restricts Canada's ability to require U.S. firms to meet employment targets as a precondition of investing in the country. If this restriction were extended to all OECD nations, the government would have great difficulty directing the investment process so as to promote job creation according to national goals.

Furthermore, there is the risk of signing a trade and investment agreement that will not pay adequate attention to environment

related concerns. I urge an approach which ensures that sustainable development be at the centre of the decision making process both of national governments and international trade institutions.

To conclude, I hope the minister can give assurance that Canada will not sign the agreement unless it retains control over job creation and unless Canada retains sovereignty over water, energy, forests and fisheries.