Charles Caccia

[Committees Of The House, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled Biotechnology Regulation in Canada, A Matter of Public Confidence .

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee considered the topic of federal regulation on biotechnology in Canada.

The report contains six recommendations. An important recommendation is the creation of a national advisory commission to provide advice on the safety and appropriateness of the technology. The committee also considers that a gene law may be necessary in the future for the evolving field of biotechnology in large part because of the important ethical questions raised by recombinant DNA technology.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I only have one minute to answer. I wish to thank the honourable member for Gaspé for his question. It seems to me that my colleague is living in the obscurity of his ignorance. Had he read the Constitution, as he should have, he would know that water is exclusively a matter of federal jurisdiction. One cannot say that there is no federal jurisdiction in that area. Thus, it means there is also a federal jurisdiction on fisheries.

Naturally, we want to reinforce the links between the federal government and the provinces. I gave only two examples, those of Ontario and Alberta, to show that at this time, and because of budgetary restrictions in those two provinces, we cannot expect them to address the issue of fisheries and assume a major responsibility in this area. These provinces have reduced their budgets and, hence, the ability of their departments to assume more responsibility than they have at the present time.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment. I wish you success in that role for which you have been predestined for a long time. We are all very glad to see you in the chair.

Historically it can be said that the Fisheries Act has played a very important environmental role because of its powers to regulate the alterations or destructions of fish habitat. Many Canadians, therefore, believe it is the most important piece of environmental legislation in Canada. For example, the Oldman dam environmental assessment was made possible by a trigger in the Fisheries Act, section 35(2), which resulted in the environmental assessment and review process.

This bill makes some important changes to the act. Clause 49 of the bill appears to broaden protection of fish habitat by making a general prohibition against harmful alteration. By adding the word "activity" to clause 49, certain types of mining found by the courts not to be included under the term "works or undertaking" used in the old act will now be included. Congratulations to the minister.

It must be said that in most provinces and territories the Fisheries Act habitat protection provisions are the only legal protection for wetlands, streams, shorelines and other such ecological significant areas. Hence, the most problematic section of the bill is clause 58(1), which would permit, by means of regulation, the delegation of certain habitat protection and management responsibilities to interested provincial governments.

This delegation would be limited to waters within the provinces, largely freshwater habitat and excludes a list of "prescribed projects", which would remain under the authority of the federal government but have yet to be determined.

The proposed legislation is not a carte blanche transfer of freshwater fish habitat responsibilities to the provinces, but instead would allow the federal government to negotiate agreements for the delegation of responsibilities to interested provinces. However,

because these agreements will have great consequences for fish habitat and environmental protection I would like to dwell on this part of the bill.

One of the reasons advanced for negotiating delegation agreements with the provinces is to eliminate "duplication and overlap" between federal and provincial jurisdictions.

There is only anecdotal evidence to this effect and this may be true in some isolated cases. But in Ontario, after the Harris government's revisions of the land use planning act, protection for environmentally significant areas such as wetland, woodlots and ravines and prime agricultural land has been basically eliminated. Thus, in the case of Ontario, there is very little left in the daily operations of the ministry to operate, let alone to examine overlap and duplication. After Premier Harris' reforms the fisheries act now stands as the only significant protection for Ontario's wetlands, streams and shorelines.

The terms of these agreements are of great importance therefore to fish habitat and overall environmental protection. I am glad that delegation will occur on a province by province basis. This will hopefully allow for the maintenance of high standards across the country.

Not only Ontario has greatly reduced its ministries of the environment and natural resources. In Alberta the environment minister's budget will be reduced by $164 million and 1,360 jobs by the year 1999. According to the premier, industry will monitor and regulate itself.

In Ontario, the ministry of environment and energy is being cut by $200 million and 752 staff by the year 1997-98 and the ministry of natural resources is being cut by $137 million and 2,170 staff over the same time.

These massive cuts will most definitely impact negatively on the ability of these two provincial governments to assume increased responsibilities for the protection of fish habitat. Hence the agreements between the government and respective provinces must incorporate a strong and transparent monitoring system to ensure that fish habitat is properly protected. In addition, strong accountability mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance incorporated into the agreements are needed. Without these provisions, delegation could result in the de facto deregulation, something the federal government surely does not want to do and actually wants to avoid.

The delegation of section 35(2) in the present Fisheries Act to the provinces also has serious ramifications for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act passed in 1995. Under that act section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act triggers environmental assessment. Under Bill C-62 this will not longer be the case and instead the government is proposing the negotiation of a list of projects which would require a mandatory permit. The list of projects requiring permits will be prescribed in the regulations after being negotiated with stakeholders.

In order to maintain the original intent and the environmental protection accorded through making section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act a trigger for the assessment, I strongly urge the minister to make the project list comprehensive and representative of ecologically diverse areas and find ways of tracking and quantifying the cumulative effects of several small projects which might fail to come under those defined under the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act trigger.

Without this capacity our environmental assessment will risk going back to a project by project approach instead of going forward to account for the cumulative impacts of development within a particular region.

The track record regarding the delegation of Fisheries Act provisions to the provinces has not fared well in the past. In his 1990 report then Auditor General Kenneth Dye stated: "In the one area where the federal government has already delegated monitoring and enforcement authority to the provinces, there has been a serious deterioration in compliance. A review of the metal mining liquid effluent regulations issues under the Fisheries Act indicates that compliance fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per cent in 1988". This is found on page 28 of the auditor general's report.

While congratulating the minister I also urge him to ensure the agreements with the provinces include a very strong and transparent mechanisms for ensuring that proper monitoring and enforcement will take place. The integrity of the fish habitat protection demands such an approach if the Fisheries Act is to continue to protect Canadians' health, environment and our most precious fisheries habitat.

[Trade, November 5th, 1996]

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

In view of the fact that Canada is about to conclude a free trade agreement with Chile, can the minister indicate the state of negotiations for labour and environmental side agreements to the accord?

[Petitions, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition stating that Canada is indivisible and that the borders of Canada and its provinces and territories, as well as its territorial waters, cannot be changed other than by all Canadian citizens exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or by the process prescribed in the Canadian Constitution.

This petition is signed by residents of Saint-Laurent, Montreal, Dorval, Pointe-Claire, Lachine, Toronto, Pierrefonds and other places in Quebec and Ontario.

[Pesticides Products Control Act, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the modernization of the best management regime in Canada.

Can the Minister of Health indicate to this House when the legislation amending the Pesticides Products Control Act will be introduced in the House?

[Emissions Trading, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the idea of emissions trading is old hat which, if adopted, would allow a company to pollute by purchasing a tradable permit. In other words, emissions trading is a licence to pollute, allowing dirty industries to buy pollution permits from cleaner industries and continue to pollute unabated.

Emissions trading runs counter to the government's commitment to pollution prevention announced in "A Guide to Green Government" signed by each and every cabinet minister in 1995.

Pollution prevention means energy efficiency and minimal waste in the use of materials rather than costly clean-ups after the fact. This is the goal we should be striving for instead of surrendering to the old idea of emissions trading which accepts pollution as an inevitable cost of doing business.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer some of the questions raised by the opposition members, the distinguished members for Chicoutimi and New Westminster-Burnaby. In answer to the question has the Minister of the Environment consulted his legal advisors, the answer is a definite yes, otherwise this bill would not have come forward and would not have gone through the drafting process that is due and given to every bill by the Department of Justice.

The member for Chicoutimi was also strong in his intervention on the fact that there was not sufficient consultation with the provinces. Actually the results are in a divided field of opinion and therefore it is incumbent upon the government, at a certain point, to make a decision as to what it thinks is in the best interest of the public and the concerned industries.

The member for Chicoutimi also raised the question of increased NOx emissions but he failed to deal with the question of increased carbon dioxide, NCO emissions, which would result if the diagnostic system were not to function.

Both the members for Chicoutimi and New Westminister-Burnaby dealt with the question of health. Evidently here we see the matter from different perspectives I regret to say. As far as I know manganese is a heavy metal. It contains neurotoxin. In certain respects it is similar to lead. As we did in the 1960s, despite strenuous opposition when we removed the lead from gasoline as an additive, we are now moving into the next phase which is partially technologically driven in now removing another heavy metal, MMT, which is an abbreviation for a complex and long chemical term which includes the heavy metal manganese.

To make it perhaps as concise as I can in the limited time, I would submit that the bill is driven by four major reasons. Basically it boils down to the reason of health. I regret to see that here we have a difference of opinion. However, in order to protect the health of Canadians it is a good step to remove manganese as an additive from gasoline. Here we are taking a measure as a precautionary principle because, as many have already said, quite rightly, the final conclusive proof has not yet come in. However, there is enough evidence to conclude that because it is a heavy metal it is desirable to remove it from the emissions that come into the air which we all breathe.

Second, there is the question of technological progress. We cannot at this stage ignore the fact that the automotive industry is installing certain onboard signalling check systems that would not function with the presence of manganese. Therefore, it becomes imperative to keep pace with technological progress, but that is not all.

This leads me to the third reason which is that we have to protect the consumer. If the car manufacturer indicates that the presence of manganese in gasoline will force the manufacturer to disconnect the diagnostic system, the consumer will no longer be informed as to the malfunctioning of certain parts of the engine and therefore the warranty will be affected. Therefore the consumer will be negatively impacted by this sequence of events.

In order to protect the consumer and in order to give the consumer the benefits and the advantage of the new type of warranty that is emerging as a result of technological progress, something must be done in order to remove the MMT from gasoline. It is an inevitable sequence of events. In other words, we cannot in this Parliament stop technological progress.

The fourth reason, in addition to the consumer protection, in particular of the car owner, and in addition to the protection of the quality of the air we breath, is the one that the distinguished member who spoke so eloquently about ethanol indicated already in his intervention. I am sure that there are members opposite who are very keen on opening opportunities for their rural constituents in industries that are related to corn production and ethanol production. Definitely this bill also will open up opportunities for the industrial use of ethanol, which would enter the stream of additives used by way of removing the MMT additive.

What we are really trying to do is keep up with the times, taking into account health, technological progress, consumer protection because of the warranties in the cars that will be produced in the very near future and also the potential for ethanol producers.

We know, despite the denial on the part of my distinguished colleagues, that MMT causes the malfunctioning of the newest emission control technologies on cars. If that is going to happen, then the result will be more pollutants entering the air. I fail to understand therefore the rationale of some of my colleagues who talk in the same vein as I do, namely in support of public health.

Carbon dioxide emissions would increase as a result of the decreased fuel efficiency if the diagnostic systems on board were not to function because of the presence of this MMT additive. The automakers when we were working in committee indicated to us that if MMT remains in gasoline they will have to disconnect the onboard diagnostic system and provide decreased warranty provisions, the ones I was referring to a moment ago, for consumers. Among them are General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and so on. These are the people who are progressing with their technology. We have to take into account that fact.

I am sure there are automotive manufacturers in Quebec and workers at Saint-Thérèse who would want to see a positive attitude developed with respect to this bill. I am referring in particular to my distinguished colleague in the Bloc Quebecois.

Much has been said of the ban on the uses of MMT in the United States. This has been often raised in debate by the opposition. If I were in the opposition obviously I would do the same. The fact is that even after the ban in the U.S. MMT is still prohibited from use in 37 of the U.S. states.

More important, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the court overturned the ban on MMT because it rejected a certain specific argument. It was only a technical procedural argument, namely that the public health impacts of fuel additives should be fully evaluated prior to broad use. In other words, it was the procedure by which MMT was banned that led to the court decision to overturn the ban. The lifting of that ban says nothing about the potential health effects of MMT. There has been a substantial misinterpretation here.

This is not a war between automobile manufacturers on one side and the U.S. based Ethyl Corporation on the other, as some participants in the debate have said. This is a question of understanding the technological process that is taking place, as I mentioned, and taking health into consideration and, subsequent to that, taking into consideration the car owner and the warranty, which are the driving forces behind this bill.

Who is opposed? As we learned in committee, the opposition comes from one large corporation, Ethyl Corporation of the United States, which exports into Canada the MMT additive. That is the only major, massive opposition that has been mounted. We heard from that corporation, of course, in committee. That is the same corporation which 12 years ago opposed tooth and nail the removal of lead from gasoline. The lobby that it mounted was considerable. Nevertheless, gasoline with lead no longer exists. Ten years from now MMT in gasoline will no longer exist as well. Subsequent generations of legislators will see a connection and a progression from health damaging additives in gasoline being gradually replaced and removed as we learn through technology how to find alternatives which are not health damaging.

Manganese is a heavy metal. It contains neurotoxins, as does lead. There is not a chemist or an engineer who will dispute that point.

As my colleague indicated, we have to move toward cleaner burning fuels. We have to improve fleet performance, increase the performance for every 100 kilometres, both in Canada and the U.S., because the number of motor vehicles on the road is increasing. Therefore, every time the quality of emission controls is improved, the increase in volume does not allow us to make progress as fast as we would like in terms of protecting the public.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention that this bill has already been totally reviewed by the committee.

[Yukon Quartz Mining Act, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad for the correction that the member for Yukon made in connection with class one procedures. As for the suggestion of the 1 per cent royalty, it is a policy approach that commands attention and certainly requires serious consideration.

Quite frankly, I cannot think of a better alternative in order to ensure that the corporate and collective benefit that may derive from certain economic activity, in this case a mining activity, also is put in a position to restore the quality of the environment as it existed before. There may be alternative approaches which I am not aware of but this approach certainly is one I will look at very carefully.