Charles Caccia

[Legal Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, because of the amendments to the clean water act recently passed by the United States house of representatives and in light of a recent study identifying Canadian and American sources of dioxins, furans and hexachlorobenzenes which are making their way into the Great Lakes, on May 19 I asked the Minister of the Environment what action is being taken to ensure water quality of the Great Lakes.

The study I am referring to is by Dr. Barry Commoner, at the Centre for the Biology of Natural Systems in Flushing, New York. He warns about dioxins and dioxin like compounds because they are highly toxic chemicals produced by industrial processes and waste incineration.

These processes have been linked with cancer and are believed to interfere with the reproductive capacities of many species. Scientists warn also that dioxins contribute to the rising levels of breast and testicular cancer and declining sperm counts in humans.

From the report we learned that the vast majority of the dioxin deposited in the Great Lakes originates in the United States. We also learned incineration of medical waste accounts for 51 per cent of all airborne dioxin entering the lakes. Municipal waste incinerators account for some 24 per cent and cement kilns burning hazardous waste account for 4.9 per cent.

Research into dioxin exposure in Canada by researchers at Boston University's School of Public Health suggests there is no safe limit of exposure to these toxic chemicals.

In light of Dr. Commoner's findings and recommendations from the international joint commission in its fifth biennial report on Great Lakes water quality urging action to stop the inflow of persistent toxic substances into the Great Lakes, I ask the minister's parliamentary secretary whether he can inform the House what the Government of Canada intends to do with respect to this very serious matter. Does the government intend to negotiate a reduction of dioxin emissions in the U.S. under the Canada-U.S. air quality accord?

Measures are needed which will protect the health of Canadians and North American ecosystems. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's reply.

[The Environment, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

There are disturbing reports on airborne pollution in the form of dioxins, furans and hexachlorobenzenes emitted through the incineration of medical waste, sewage sludge and cement kilns burning hazardous waste.

Does the government have plans to regulate carcinogenic emissions from incinerators and are federal guidelines for human exposure to dioxins adequate to protect human health and ecosystems?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association regarding the 22nd annual meeting of the Canadian and European Parliaments held in Brussels, Belgium, from March 18 to March 25, 1995.

[The Environment, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

North American security is threatened more on the environment than on any other front. Now the U.S. clean water act and the clean air act are under attack. We learned that the U.S. House of Representatives has diluted the clean water act making it easier for industry to continue polluting the Great Lakes with airborne dioxins and furans.

What effect could these amendments have on Canada? What action is being taken to ensure the Great Lakes water quality agreement is upheld?

[Canada Elections Act, May 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on May 8 I asked the hon. Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister whether the G-7 leaders at the June meeting in Halifax will discuss the important issue of making the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund environmentally sustainable institutions.

At present, the lending programs of international financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary fund, provide mostly developing countries with over $30 billion a year in the form of loans. Too often these loans fail to take into account environmental and social considerations as in the case of dam construction.

Closing the gap between the rich developed nations and poor developing countries must remain the principal goal of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We all agree with that. However, these institutions and their initiatives in developing countries must aim at alleviating poverty while protecting the environment. That is where the point needs to be made.

In the case of the International Monetary Fund, we feel that instead of relying predominately on economic considerations, economic and environmental goals should be integrated.

As to the World Bank, while it has made some progress toward greater accountability, it still has a long way to go to fully incorporate sustainable development principles into the decision-making process. Furthermore, at every opportunity the World Bank should ensure that the principles of international environmental agreements such as the convention on climate change and the one on biodiversity, to mention two, are upheld and reinforced by its decisions.

It is my understanding that the Prime Minister intends to discuss the role of international financial institutions at the next meeting of the G-7 in June in Halifax. Therefore, in that context I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can inform us whether the urgency of incorporating the principles of sustainable development into the activities of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund will be discussed there.

[World Bank And International Monetary Fund, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of the Environment.

The World Bank and especially the International Monetary Fund are slow in making environmentally sustainable development a priority. In light of Canada's financial support of these institutions and the recent discussions at the Hamilton meeting of the G-7 environment ministers, can the minister tell us whether the G-7 leaders in Halifax will discuss measures that would turn the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund into environmentally sustainable institutions?

[The Environment, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the world community is looking to Canada and other industrialized nations to set a good example on the pressing issue of climate change.

Certain gases, most notably carbon dioxide, collect in the earth's atmosphere and trap heat. Most carbon dioxide is produced in industrial nations from burning coal, oil and gas. Thus we must find ways of reducing the consumption of these fossil fuels.

Climate change is not only an environmental issue, but also an ethical issue. If Arctic ice caps melt and oceans rise, the lives of millions of coastal and island people around the globe will be in danger. It is important that Canadians understand the cause and effect of climate change.

Therefore I urge the government to do everything in its power to launch a public education and awareness program to explain the complexity of this issue.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 24th, 1995]

In airports across Canada, is Transport Canada arranging for the collection of de-icing fluids in accordance with CEPA guidelines, and if so, ( a ) at which airports under Transport Canada management or jurisdiction is this collection taking place, ( b ) how is this collection taking place and, if not, when and where will such collection be installed?

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 17th, 1995]

In light of the recent derailment of tanker cars carrying sulphuric acid which spilled into Lake Masketsi and the Tawachiche River, does Transport Canada intend to undertake an investigation to identify and correct factors which could lead to future derailments of tanker cars carrying toxic substances?

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Canadians know very well that we have inherited an economic mess from the Conservatives and that steps must be taken to reduce the deficit and the debt. On that we all agree.

The major preoccupation of this budget is to appease the marketplace, in particular rating agencies. Having done so this year one may expect Wall Street to demand more measures of the same kind in future budgets.

To deal with this the Prime Minister is taking the issue of currency speculators and their impact on national economies to the next meeting in June of the G-7 nations, a very timely initiative for which he is to be congratulated.

There are a few positive measures in the budget for which the Minister of Finance is to be congratulated. For instance, from the perspective of sustainable development one could highlight his decision to remove the 20 per cent limit of a donor's income when donations qualify as ecologically sensitive land. There is a commitment in the budget to study barriers or disincentives in the use of recycled materials over virgin materials.

There is a promise to examine the tax system in search of disincentives to energy efficiency and renewable forms of energy. Subsidies were cut in the energy sector that encouraged uneconomic and unsustainable supply development. Much more needs to be done if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This brings me to the end of the list of good news and back to the question of how to reduce the national debt and the deficit. It is a necessity on which we all agree.

In the weeks and months preceding the budget several presentations were made repeatedly that social spending is not the cause of our economic ills and that our deficit problem, rather than through cuts in expenditures, ought to be resolved through increases in revenue by way of closing tax loopholes. Billions of dollars a year are forgone in revenue because of existing tax loopholes, including items such as lottery winnings, business meals and entertainment expenses and other existing items well

identified in a report by the Department of Finance dated January 1994.

To his credit, the Minister of Finance closed a couple of loopholes but the tax system remains unprogressive as a result of nine years of Conservative government, Conservative budget making.

It is time for a thorough review of our tax system as it stands now. This review is made even more urgent and necessary and relevant by the fact that the social envelope as announced in the budget is being reduced by $7 billion. Had more tax loopholes been closed, had the tax system been put under the microscope to the same extent that the social security system has been, it would have not been necessary to reduce the social envelope. We would have funds available to diminish the necessity of cutting expenditures. We would have funds for the creation of employment programs for youth desperately waiting for job opportunities which are now not materializing despite our vigorous economic growth.

In other words, closing tax loopholes would provide the government with badly needed revenues to combat unemployment and to apply less severe cuts. Time does not permit to comment on the many cuts and I will therefore comment only on a couple which are particularly painful.

One reduces the social housing budget by $270 million at a time when in Toronto alone an applicant has to wait over four years.

Why reduce the protection of our natural resources by one third, the estimates of the environment department, and allocate to the department of defence almost 20 times as much, $9 billion? What is more important?

Why reduce international aid at a time when health and development projects are so badly needed for the stability of nations most in need?

How can we implement our red book commitment to sustainable development with a 70 per cent cut in the federal allocation to the Canadian environment industry, while leaving the nuclear industry unscathed from any budget cuts?

How can we maintain and strengthen the Canadian identity when the budget of the Canada Council is cut in half? How can we promote and sustain artistic talents without the support of the federal government?

In a way it is too late to talk about the budget, but not too soon to talk about the next one. For 1996 we will keep on working so the budget will have a different orientation, an orientation to the promises made in the red book, an orientation to deal with unemployment, the protection of the weaker in society and the social needs of Canadians.

Over the years Canadians have turned to the Liberals at election time because they trust us as the party that knows how to strengthen and intertwine social and economic policies. This principle is as valid today as it will be 20, 40 or 60 years from now. Hopefully the budget will have the desired effect and we Liberals will be able to turn our attention to the other half of the equation, developing strong social and job creation initiatives and policies in the second half of our mandate for the benefit of the total Canadian society.