Charles Caccia

[Carbon Dioxide Emissions, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, scientists have predicted that global temperatures could increase 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius over the next century. The cause is greenhouse gases from human activities and in particular, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases produce shifts in climate, in forest growth and agricultural patterns.

Led by Alberta, Canada is among the highest per capita producer of carbon dioxide emissions. Yet ignoring the large problems coastal provinces would face because of rising sea levels and the further disruption of fisheries, the province of Alberta is adamantly opposed to comprehensive carbon dioxide reductions.

The federal government repeatedly asked the provinces to co-operate and introduce mandatory carbon dioxide reductions. So far however, Alberta's inflexible position makes any meaningful reduction impossible and weakens our international reputation.

[Truck Safety, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during a one day blitz in Toronto, 73 per cent of trucks pulled over by police forces were deemed unfit for the road and immediately taken out of service.

This appalling level of truck safety poses a serious threat to the lives of Canadians. I ask the Minister of Transport to urge his provincial colleagues to ensure high levels of regulation enforcement and, if necessary, higher fines on trucking companies to prevent loss of life and injury.

This problem exemplifies the importance of maintaining strong enforced regulations for the protection of all Canadians.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, February 15th, 1995]

What is the total amount of federal public money given to the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) since its inception?

(Return tabled.)

[Porcupine Caribou, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, between the Yukon and Alaska the Porcupine caribou herd regularly migrates across the Canada-U.S. border. As they have for centuries, the Gwich'in people rely on the caribou for food. However, this resource is threatened by a recent Alaska legislature resolution encouraging oil and gas exploration on the calving grounds of the Porcupine herd. Thus, the herd is in serious danger.

The Prime Minister and President Clinton are on record favouring the protection of the calving grounds. When they meet next week in Ottawa they could make a strong statement of support for the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd and the survival of the Gwich'in people.

Many of us in this House urge them to do so.

[Income Tax, February 10th, 1995]

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

As we are all aware in the 1980s under Tory rule, the top personal income tax bracket was lowered from 34 to 29 per cent and the corporate tax rate fell from 36 to 28 per cent. While recognizing the confidentiality of the budget, would the minister assure the House that he is fully addressing the lack of fairness inherent in the taxation system we inherited from the Tory government.

[Human Resources, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is to be applauded for considering a ban on replacement workers in the event of a strike. Such measure would mirror legislation already existing in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

The banning of replacement workers has not harmed the economies of these provinces. On the contrary, such legislation would help to motivate labour and management to begin early the collective bargaining process, thus averting costly work stoppages.

As emotion often runs high during a strike, this measure would help prevent tragic events such as those recently witnessed at Yellowknife's Giant gold mine.

Liberals look forward to passing such legislation.

[Fresh Water, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in December I asked the President of the Treasury Board for his assurance that Bill C-62, the Regulatory Efficiency Act, would not apply to the Fisheries Act or any other legislation which protects the environment. The minister replied that it is not the purpose of the bill to compromise environmental protection.

Although the proposed legislation is not intended to harm the environment, health or safety, the adoption of Bill C-62 would fundamentally alter the very structure through which regulations are both created and enforced. In other words, Bill C-62 poses a threat to what we have developed over decades in the form of national regulatory standards.

If regulation has become outdated or irrelevant, then let us change it. Apparently over the next two years 250 regulations are to be repealed and another 400 will undergo major revisions as a result of the findings in the 1992-93 regulatory review. Review of existing regulations will make the regulatory system more efficient but it will not threaten the fundamental premise of regulation making namely that regulations apply to everyone, rich and poor, regardless of influence or power.

Under Bill C-62, however, any minister would negotiate separate compliance agreements with any business or individual and replace designated regulations. It will be between the respective minister and individual applicant, not between Parliament and the Canadian public that individual agreements will be approved.

In addition, in certain cases where trade secrets are involved or if the agreements contain information which could threaten a company's competitive position, then secrecy would be invoked. Gradually then we can see how the regulatory system would change and we would face a situation over time in which there would be a standard for those who can afford law firms and consultants and another for those who cannot.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has stated that made to measure regulations as proposed in this bill would save, mostly to big business, over $3 billion a year. Treasury Board has pointed to these projected benefits but seems to have overlooked the cost side of the equation.

The proposed bill if enacted would lead to thousands of agreements. What will then be the cost to the public for approving, monitoring and enforcing such agreements?

In times of fiscal restraint does the government really want to establish a two-tier system of regulations based on separate negotiated agreements? Would that be in the public interest? Will approving, monitoring and enforcing thousands of individual compliance agreements further our quest for better levels of enforcement and standards?

Canadians by far prefer one regulatory system, one that applies equally to all, a regulatory system that leads to better results in the public interest. For this reason I ask whether the minister would withdraw the legislation and instead produce a white paper for public discussion.

In the meantime the Minister of Justice plans to introduce amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act very soon. The amendments are to simplify and accelerate the regulatory process and offer a better channel for achieving regulatory efficiency in an equitable and comprehensive manner.

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, as I did the minister last week, whether he can assure us that Canada will vote for a socially and environmentally responsible resolution that is going to come before the United Nations General Assembly.

The background to this resolution is as follows. It is a resolution that is asking the international court of justice for an opinion on whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons is ever justified.

When the vote came up in the first committee, as I understand it, Canada abstained. Tonight I want to tell the parliamentary secretary that I am ashamed of the fact that Canada decided to abstain from the vote, considering its fine, long and historical record particularly highlighted and developed over time by Prime Minister Pearson and followed in his footsteps by Prime Minister Trudeau. We have a tremendous reputation in the international community and we cannot abstain on such an important vote.

Let me also inform the House that in Canada there are about 100 national and regional groups supporting the resolution, including professional organizations such as Physicians for Global Survival, Lawyers for Social Responsibility, Project Ploughshares and the like.

In addition, city councils such as those in St. John's, Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria have passed motions in support of the resolution. This resolution was put forward at the United Nations by Indonesia on behalf of a large group of non-aligned nations. For the life of me I cannot understand why Canada cannot identify itself with non-aligned nations on a method that is related to nuclear arms and support this resolution to go to the International Court of Justice.

Surely our record is such that it should remove any doubt, any uncertainty and move us away from abstaining and vote in favour of this motion.

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to the reply of the parliamentary secretary.

[Petitions, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is my intent to table petitions that have been collected across

metro Toronto by students in a number of schools following the incident at Brockton High a few weeks ago. Members will recall that led to the severe injury of two teachers.

In this petition the petitioners are calling upon Parliament to strengthen existing laws regarding guns, to implement longer and mandatory sentences for people convicted of crimes involving the use of guns and finally that the flow of illegal weapons coming into Canada be halted.

[Bill C-62, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

Can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that the changes proposed in Bill C-62 will not apply to the Fisheries Act nor any other legislation which protects the environment?