Charles Caccia

[Earth Day, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first celebrated in 1970, Earth Day highlights the link between our behaviour and the health of the planet.

In Canada over 3,000 events are planned, including the planting of seedlings and the cleaning of streams and rivers. Community groups and schools are staging events on the protection of nature, conservation of our natural resources, reduction of air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, protection of our drinking water, importance of recycling, energy efficiency and conservation of energy.

Earth Day is a day for all Canadians to celebrate together with citizens in 100 other countries doing exactly the same.

[National Parole Board, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on March 7 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport whether the minister would implement the Transport Safety Board's recommendations to ensure that tanker car standards are strengthened to protect the public during the transport of dangerous chemical substances.

I thank the parliamentary secretary for his reply to the effect that work was already in progress to upgrade the strength of tanker cars. This is certainly progress on the road to protecting Canadians, their lands and water from toxic chemicals in the event of rail accidents. It also represents an important step in maintaining the confidence of Canadians in rail transport.

While this is a step in the right direction the public interest covers a much broader picture. If we are to have a truly sustainable transportation policy in Canada, not only do we need to have a safe rail system, important as it is. We also need to examine the effects of air pollution caused by increasing car and truck traffic. We also need to tackle the serious problem of carbon dioxide emissions and their contribution to the onset of climate change.

Let me elaborate on one of these items. In a 1995 study by the sectoral task force on transportation of the Ontario Round Table on the Environment and the Economy it was calculated that for every tonne of cargo hauled road transport produced seven times more carbon dioxide than rail. This fact must become a central consideration when making transport decisions in Canada. At present we are unfortunately headed in the wrong direction. The amount of freight being hauled on Canada's roads is greatly increasing while the amount of freight being hauled on rail is decreasing.

For example, road transport has increased its share of surface transport in Canada from 30 per cent in the 1950s to 70 per cent in 1991. At present, subsidies to rail are being cut while road subsidies continue to increase. Today our highways are clogged with trucks when in some regions railway lines are being underutilized or even abandoned.

Then there is the public health component of a sustainable transportation policy which points to the health cost caused by urban smog in Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars between medical and hospital care are being spent. Clearly there is a link between transportation policy and human health. Therefore we need to find ways of reducing automotive transport.

Producing cars and trucks which pollute less is helpful but not sufficient an answer unless accompanied by decrease in vehicles and vehicular use. What is needed is a gradual reversal of the present trend, a movement toward a greater reliance on rail, a movement toward incentives favouring public transit in cities and a movement toward reducing subsidies for road transport.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. When can Canadians expect the federal government to produce a sustainable transportation policy which would address protection of human health through pollution reduction and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by giving greater importance to moving freight by rail and by encouraging and quite possibly facilitating policies aimed at moving people by public transit?

[Canada Water Export Prohibition Act, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kamloops deserves to be complimented for bringing the bill before us. It allows us to discuss the question of water policy.

Under a Liberal government in 1983 a study was commissioned on water which resulted in the Pearse report entitled "Currents of Change", an inquiry on federal water policy which saw the light of

day in 1986. Chapter 12 of the report contained a thorough analysis of water exports as one of the many components of water policy.

The Pearse report has been languishing since then. Its main recommendations are waiting either to be implemented in their original form or modified. In this sense Bill C-232 is extremely helpful because it reminds us that the whole question of water needs to be visited urgently.

The bill relates to the export of water. I concur with the main thrust of the private member's bill. However I cannot find, as he does, any reference in the NAFTA that would commit the Government of Canada to export water. My recollection is that there is only a reference to mineral water, as the parliamentary secretary indicated in his intervention. Nevertheless, if the member for Kamloops has a section of the NAFTA that specifically implies Canada's commitment to export water, I would be grateful if he were to bring it to our attention.

We are talking about the role of the International Joint Commission which needs to be revisited to determine whether it is timely and effective and, if not, whether it has to be recast in a new role.

We are also talking about whether our water research facilities, particularly with respect to fresh water, are adequate; whether we are using water in Canada in an efficient manner; whether the quality of water at the municipal level is adequate; and whether there are ways of improving it.

As the member for Laurentides indicated, we need to look at the trends in groundwater. If the trends are downward, as she and some hydrologists indicated, we need to look at the predictions for the long term so we can ensure the use of water is sustainable and future generations, the grandchildren of our grandchildren, will have access to groundwater in the same manner as we do despite the predicted increase in population.

The member for Kamloops said there was tacit approval for the sale of water to U.S. and Mexico. He seems to be stretching it a bit beyond belief. I do not see any evidence of that. The strong point of the bill is that it draws our attention to the fact that whenever there is an interbasin transfer of water there is an impact on the ecosystem. There is an impact on plants, animals and even sometimes on the micro climate.

Therefore interbasin transfers should be a thing of the past and ought never to be considered again, if at all possible, as was the case with the not lamented disappearance of the Grand Canal proposal. That proposal received under the Conservative regime of 1984 to 1994 a grant to facilitate its fulfilment. It was one of the greatest misuses of public money I can remember.

I welcomed the parliamentary secretary indicating that a review of water policy was currently taking place. That was the best kept secret in town. Nevertheless it is a good one We welcome that fact. We all look forward to the phase when the review will become open, which will then allow parliamentarians, the public, interested parties and so on to participate.

In discussing the management of water and how humans relate to it, one cannot help but make a brief reference to dam construction as the member for Thunder Bay did so eloquently in his intervention. We all hope the construction of dams remains a thing of the past. It has had its phase but we must learn to operate and function in relation to water within the means made available to us without interfering and damaging nature in the way we have done so far.

In this respect I can only thing of the horrendous damage to the native economy that has been caused by the construction of the Great Whale Dam in northern Quebec and the proposal which fortunately was suspended thereafter because of strong opposition to it.

The times of megaprojects are over. At least I hope they are over and we can manage our requirements for water in a more thoughtful and careful manner, being aware of the ecological impact.

We need to examine the pricing, quality and management of water; the international questions including the question of water export; and the role of the institutions we have established over time to manage better the waters we share with our neighbours.

In conclusion, I cannot stress too strongly the necessity of the Pearse report finally being made the object of a thorough review and a policy being announced that will implement the recommendations contained therein.

I would ask that the member for Oakville-Milton be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on March 3 I asked the Minister of Natural Resources, in connection with the issue of climate change, what she plans to do to meet both our carbon dioxide reduction commitments under the climate change convention signed in Rio and the carbon dioxide reductions promised in the red book.

It is acknowledged that voluntary efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions are insufficient and that Canada, unfortunately, will not stabilize emissions by the year 2000 or meet the red book commitment to reduce emissions 20 per cent by the year 2005.

We have a long way to go and the climate change problem is getting more and more serious. For example, the Mackenzie valley impact study completed in 1996 measured the impact of climate change on that valley. It predicts lower water levels in northern lakes, increased thawing of the permafrost and the likelihood of increased forest fires.

These changes have not gone unnoticed by Canadians. A recent poll by Inside Canada Research found the vast majority of Canadians surveyed were increasingly concerned about the government's inability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to meet its international commitments to stabilize greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Therefore, to resolve this problem, a growing international consensus seems to be emerging. It is felt that binding timelines are needed to ensure carbon dioxide emission reductions be achieved in future.

Not only has the voluntary approach to carbon dioxide reductions proven to be insufficient, the Department of Natural Resources now estimates that we will be 9 per cent above stabilization by the year 2000. While emissions continue to grow, we make it more difficult to resolve them with new tax incentives for the production of oil from tar sands, an extraction, as members know, that produces 10 times more carbon dioxide per comparable unit of energy than crude oil from conventional light sources.

What are the answers? They are not easy but they are necessary. First energy efficiency and conservation programs need to be implemented. Well researched programs were released last fall which outline the benefits gained through energy efficient retrofitting of commercial, institutional and residential buildings. Retrofitting is a labour intensive enterprise that pays good dividends by creating more jobs per dollar invested than conventional energy production. Consequently, this makes Canadian industries more competitive.

Second, our large reserves of natural gas allow Canada to shift gradually to natural gas which emits less carbon dioxide than petroleum.

Finally, we have renewable sources of energy which are badly in need of being given a further boost by government. Over time renewable sources of energy and natural gas could become the backbone of the energy industry of the future.

Against this background I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the minister intends to take new measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. If so, what will they be? On the international scene will Canada move to support the European Union's position, which now calls for a greenhouse gas reduction of 15 per cent by the year 2010?

I appreciate the fact the parliamentary secretary might wish to reply tomorrow.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate your offer. I would be glad to accept your option to proceed with the statement now if it is all right with you.

[Organization For Economic Development And Co-Operation, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Apparently the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation is proposing a multilateral investment agreement which, if signed, would not allow Canada to set job creation targets or set conditions on future foreign investments.

Can the minister confirm that Canada will not sign the proposed agreement unless such restrictions are removed?

[Marine Protection, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Conservation groups are urging the government to declare the largest underwater canyon on the east coast, described as an underwater Grand Canyon, as Canada's first marine protected area.

Using the powers under the new oceans act, will the minister move swiftly to designate this biologically rich and diverse region as Canada's first protected marine area?

[Transport, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport or his parliamentary secretary.

According to the Transportation Safety Board rail tanker cars presently used to haul dangerous chemicals are vulnerable to breaking apart in accidents, putting people, communities and the environment at risk.

Would the Minister of Transport proceed with the safety board's recommendations and ensure that tanker car standards are strengthened for the protection of the public?

[Supply, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is worthwhile noting that while given 20 minutes to speak on this subject matter, the member for Calgary Southwest devoted barely half of his speech to the subject matter on the Order Paper which reads in part: "This House condemn the government for requiring

Canadians to pay over 70 per cent more in CPP premiums-," and so on.

It is a fully misleading statement. The fact that the hon. member would devote half of his time speaking about tainted blood, misuse of justice, integrity of government, ethical standards rather than addressing the subject matter of the Canada pension plan demonstrates how thin and how poorly researched his subject and his speech are by the people who prepared it for him.

Obviously the member from Calgary does not know his subject and the people who prepared his speech for him today ran out of steam in dealing with it, so much so that he had to fill up the time available to him with other subjects which are not contemplated in the motion.

The member from Calgary is trying to mislead Canadians by convincing them that there is a 70 per cent hike in the Canada pension plan contributions. I would like to ask the member for Calgary Southwest whether he would use his ability to go through the proposal that has been approved by the 10 provinces and the Government of Canada and verify for himself that the 70 per cent figure is totally wrong. The reality is that the increase for the employee goes from 2.9 per cent of pensionable earnings in this year to 3.5 per cent in 1999 and gradually to 4.9 per cent by the year 2003.

[Committees Of The House, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. It relates to Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction, and to its reporting with amendments.

The committee wishes to thank witnesses and interested citizens in all parts of the country for their thoughtful contributions to this timely and important piece of legislation.