Charles Caccia

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Madam Chair, it seems at this point when the debate is coming to a conclusion that it might be desirable to get to some basic questions.

The one I would like to ask is since the collapse of the Soviet Union, who is the enemy? Who is threatening North America and particularly, who is threatening Canada?

Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union and also in listening to the argument put forward by the member for Calgary Southeast, it is extremely difficult to visualize where the threat is coming from.

Does Canada have an enemy to be concerned about and if so, who is the enemy? We know there are potential threats posed to the U.S. administration but certainly those threats are not posed to Canada. Therefore it would seem to be desirable that in this debate one should draw a line between the position of Canada and the position of the U.S. administration. These are two completely different situations and each of them, if this premise is accepted, would require a different treatment.

If Canada were to join a defence missile system, then the possibility would become very strong that Canada would attract this potential enemy to include our territory as a target. There is very little doubt that we would be seen as part, as other members have indicated, of a continental approach that would therefore make Canada part of an initiative that emanates from the U.S. administration. I see actually in Canada's interest an initiative that would decouple Canada from any defence system for North America for the very simple reason that Canada does not have any enemy to be worried about. Therefore Canada does not need to set up a system of defensive missiles that one day could become offensive.

This leads me to the third point which is the issue of weaponization of space. Here, on a number of occasions, United States officials have made it quite clear that in the long run the defence missile system will lead to the weaponization of space. This is something that the Government of Canada opposes today. If it opposes this today yet engages in discussions about the setting up of a system, it would find it very difficult to withdraw from those discussions in 10 years or 20 years from now when the weaponization of space would be coming within reach.

That leads to the next point that is linked with this, and that is whether we have as a government an exit policy in these negotiations. This point has been made repeatedly by some of my colleagues.

Apparently we do not seem to have an exit strategy, so to speak, one that would allow us at a certain point in the negotiations to say that we are not prepared to go ahead and that we will refrain from joining the defence system.

Once the negotiations have started and once we have established our technological interests, as has already been outlined by the Minister of National Defence and also by the member from Calgary, once we are engaged in that kind of technologically strategic interests and common development, it will be virtually impossible to withdraw and say we are not going to be part of this system if we have been part of the negotiations and the development of the system itself. For the life of me, I cannot see how this could be arranged.

Much has been said in the course of this debate, by those who favour the negotiations, about how this is a defence system. This is what it is called, there is no doubt about that, but whether in the end this will remain a defence system is very doubtful. And we have no guarantee to that effect. It could be turned into an offensive system, if so desired, by those who planned it.

In this context, it is important to make a reference to this data that I find rather troublesome, namely, that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, since the end of the Cold War, the spending on the part of the U.S. administration on weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, chemical or biological, has amounted to some $596 billion. Therefore, there is a little publicized but massive injection of funds behind an effort on the part of the most powerful nation in the world in building weapons of mass destruction. The concept behind it, of course, is one that would have to be debated on another occasion.

The fact is that we have here an initiative which is certainly not one that leads to the stabilization of the relationship of powers in the global community. Canada's interests are not along this line. Canada's interests, it seems to me, would be better served by being part of initiatives at a disarmament table rather than being at a table where there are discussions on the issue of missile defence systems.

The whole notion of conjuring up the threat that might be coming from some unknown source that would one day decide to attack North America--as the member for Calgary Southeast indicated, perhaps North Korea--is simply absurd. It is simply beyond comprehension.

In addition to that, to see this initiative of discussing the missile defence system as one that would only imply a technological participation on the part of Canada is also one that is very difficult to accept as being grounded in logic and realism.

It seems to me, in conclusion, that we would be wise to ask ourselves some basic questions. Where is the enemy? Who is the enemy?

Are we are able to identify the enemy of Canada? I cannot think of anyone considering the high reputation Canada has in the world community, considering the work that it does in the developing world and considering its reputation at the United Nations in its support for multilateralism--you name it, Madam Chair, it is a long list--so considering all these factors, Canada has no enemy and therefore it has no need to participate in this type of so-called missile defence system.

[National Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's participation in the proposed missile defence system should be turned down because: first, Canada has no enemies and is not threatened by any nation; second, should Canada become part of a missile defence system, the alleged, yet unknown, enemy would have every reason to include Canada among its targets; third, there is ample evidence the U.S. intends to weaponize outer space; and, fourth, once the Government of Canada enters into discussions and negotiations with the U.S. administration, it would be very difficult to extricate itself.

For all those reasons I urge the government to keep Canada out of the missile defence venture and to concentrate its energies instead on peace rather than on belligerent measures called defence systems.

Canada's interests are best served by being at the disarmament rather than at the armament table.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his comprehensive reply, but it is not exhaustive enough nor satisfactory enough, particularly his concluding remarks in which he seems to indicate that the policy his department is pursuing is one of balancing consumer confidence with the interests of stakeholders. I think that is a recipe for disaster.

The government has to give leadership and protect the consumer, therefore signal the industry as to what is acceptable and what is not.

In my opening intervention I indicated a number of reasons why the Monsanto application should be shelved, not only on environmental consideration, but on economic considerations, and they are considerable. Also the position taken by the Canadian Wheat Board and the reluctance on the part of western farmers in adopting this type of genetically modified wheat should be taken into account.

I would urge the parliamentary secretary to reconsider his reply.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate you in your new role.

I am making this intervention following a question that I put to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on February 5. I asked if he would reject Monsanto's application to release genetically modified wheat in Canada, given the growing opposition by farmers and groups because of a potential loss of premium markets?

The minister's reply did not really answer my question on the economic impact of releasing genetically modified wheat. It seems to me that this matter needs to be pursued and that Monsanto's application should be rejected for the following reasons.

First, according to scientific studies, GM crops cross easily with non-genetically modified crops of the same species growing nearby.

In 2000, non-genetically modified rapeseed imported by Advanta into Europe from Canada was found to have been contaminated by genetically modified rape grown over four kilometres away. As a result, the organic growers of Saskatchewan can no longer export their supposedly genetically modified-free canola to Europe because it has been contaminated by genetically modified canola grown nearby.

Evidently, segregating GM free wheat from genetically modified wheat is not possible. Therefore, why do we want to tamper with a premium export? Cross-contamination is inevitable and, therefore, the European Union will likely ban the import of all Canadian wheat if genetically modified wheat is released in Canada.

Second, the Canadian Wheat Board does not favour genetically modified wheat because it does not want to lose exports worth approximately $4 billion. Apparently, 82% of Wheat Board customers do not want the genetically modified wheat.

Third, health and scientific authorities have identified possible health risks associated with the genetically modified food.

We are told these possible health risks might be exacerbated with the introduction of genetically modified wheat into the food supply, since wheat is so widely consumed globally, often in a minimally processed form. Therefore, as a minimum, all GM food should be labelled so that consumers can make a choice and avoid food produced with genetically modified ingredients if they so wish.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food can tell us whether the decision to allow Monsanto's application will be reconsidered?

The prudent course of action would be to turn down the application, protect the economic well-being of Canadian farmers, take care of the long term interests of the Canadian Wheat Board, and ensure a healthy and viable ecosystem.

[Eel Fishery, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, according to scientists, the latest victim of overfishing in Lake Ontario is the commercial eel fishery.

Forty years ago, there were 30 eels per hectare in the inshore waters of Lake Ontario. Now there is only one eel for every 5.6 hectares. Furthermore, at the height of the commercial fishery in 1980, about 225 tonnes were caught per year. Now the annual catch in Lake Ontario is less than 10 tonnes.

As with northern cod, overharvesting hastened the depletion of eel stocks. Habitat destruction, dams, seaweed harvesting, invasive species and water pollution: altogether they have taken their toll.

Therefore, as a matter of urgency, provincial, state, and federal governments should adopt the scientists' recommendations aimed at taking immediate protective action of the depleted eel stocks before it is too late.

[The Environment, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last December, the Ontario Minister of the Environment announced that heavy-duty diesel standards will be tightened on April 1 of this year, making Ontario's emissions standards the strictest in North America.

Since the movement of vehicles crosses provincial borders, could the Minister of the Environment indicate when similar standards will be set for the rest of the country?

[The Environment, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada's report “Human Activity in the Environment”, released in 2003, Canada's 1,300 glaciers have lost between 25% and 75% of their mass since 1850.

Glacial stream flow, which peaks in the summer months, provides moisture during dry times, an essential role for the ecological and economic functioning of the prairie provinces.

Along the eastern slope of the Rockies, glacier cover is decreasing rapidly and total cover is now close to its lowest level in 10,000 years. Most of this reduction has taken place over the last 50 years, resulting in a decrease in glacial stream flow during the summer.

These statistics tell us that we have to take strong action in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, otherwise we can expect more droughts, forest fires and negative economic consequences for prairie farmers and western Canadians.

I urge the government to give this excellent report by Statistics Canada attention and priority for policy development.

[The Environment, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne we learned that:

...building on recommendations of the National Roundtable on theEnvironment and the Economy, the Government will start incorporating keyindicators on clean water, clean air, and emissions reduction into its decisionmaking.

It should be noted that going back to the 1997 Liberal campaign red book, we find:

We will ask the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy to expand its work with stakeholdersand provincial governments to develop eco-efficiency indicators.

Subsequently, in the year 2000 Statistics Canada produced excellent indicators in a report entitled “EConnections 2000”.

Consequently, the government should be made aware of the fact that it is already in a position to use the key environmental indicators already developed by Statistics Canada for its policy development and decision making.

[Agriculture, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, given that Canadian farmers' groups, including the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Wheat Board, oppose the release of Monsanto's genetically modified wheat variety because of a potential loss of premium markets, does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food intend to turn down Monsanto's application?

[International Trade, February 4th, 2004]

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

Given the statement by the President of the Canadian Wheat Board, according to whom Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat will have a devastating economic impact on grain producers in western Canada, particularly in terms of “lost access to premium markets”, and given the importance of the European market for non-genetically modified Canadian wheat, can the Minister of International Trade indicate what he intends to do to prevent any potential loss of access to European markets?