Charles Caccia

[Nuclear Weapons, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently at the United Nations, Canada abstained on a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

In light of the minister of state for foreign affairs recent statement to the UN General Assembly in which she advocated strenghthening the human rights and environmental functions within the United Nations, can she assure the House that when the same resolution comes to a vote in the General Assembly, Canada will no longer abstain but vote for nuclear responsibility and support the resolution?

[Petitions, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to present to you today and to Parliament some 4,100 signatures from a petition that has been initiated and expanded at Brockton High School in downtown Toronto near the intersection of Bloor and Dufferin.

This petition was initiated by teachers and students there and then expanded to other schools in the Toronto Board of Education district.

The signatures are very significant because they were collected in a school where the shooting took place of two very dedicated counsellors who were seriously injured but who are now recovering. In essence the petition making reference to illegal weapons and violent incidents is asking Parliament to strengthen existing gun laws, 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.

[Child Poverty, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to the National Council on Welfare over 1.2 million children under age 18 live in poverty. From a recent report by the Campaign 2000 coalition we learned that there are over 300,000 more poor children today than five years ago.

Furthermore at the latest Canadian Medical Association conference it was reported that poor children are twice as likely to suffer psychiatric disorders, failing grades and hyperactivity than more affluent children. Evidently poor children are more apt to drop out of school.

For social, moral and economic reasons the government has a responsibility to ensure that all Canadian children have an equal opportunity to fully participate in Canadian life.

I therefore urge the government to implement the resolution on child poverty unanimously passed by this House in 1989.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association regarding the annual OECD debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which took place in Strasbourg from October 4 to October 6, 1994.

[Global Climate Change, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.

Indeed as in every other debate there is a lot to be learned. I have learned a lot during this hour from the input given by my colleagues whom I would like to thank.

The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia has done a lot of homework. It seems to me however that he is putting forward observations that over the centuries have been made by the scientific community and which are geologically proven, no doubt.

However he is not aware of the fact that in recent times, in 1988 in Toronto at the international conference attended by scientists the scientific community concluded that there is a problem here in terms of climate change. Yes, there were a few dissenting voices but nevertheless a large part of the scientific community was of the opinion that we have to deal with climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions. That conclusion was reinforced and fleshed out in more detail in 1991 at the climate conference held in Geneva.

Next year in March a second conference on climate change will take place in Germany at which governments will participate to work out a global plan.

Evidently the scientific community first and then the politicians in the world have come to a conclusion of substance here despite all the understandable and justifiable doubts that have been expressed by the hon. member.

I concur with the member for Comox-Alberni in his warning that it is a difficult path. Change cannot be achieved overnight. We have to look at a mix if I understood him correctly and not rely on a shift from one set of sources, the non-renewable to the renewable, and hope that the problem will dissolve. He is quite right. We cannot do it quickly and it is a very long and difficult path.

It seems to me that the members for Laurentides and Terrebonne missed the point. We, or at least I look at this issue as a form of co-operative federalism. They interpret this issue as one of interference in provincial jurisdiction. Evidently there is a profound ideological difference.

To conclude, I would like to thank and express my gratitude to the member for Cumberland-Colchester for her impassioned and very interesting intervention, for her incisive analysis, for her support and for warning us about the importance of the precautionary principle.

[Global Climate Change, November 22nd, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in anticipation of global climate change, consider the advisability of promoting energy conservation and efficiency, as well as placing greater reliance on renewable sources of energy so as to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker, in essence this motion is about climate change. It is an issue for the 21st century which has to be tackled in this decade. It is an issue that has serious economic and environmental consequences.

Climate change as predicted by meteorologists and scientists all over the world would have serious consequences on forestry, on agriculture, on fisheries, on biodiversities. Most important from a human perspective are the consequences on sea levels and what that might do to populations around the Pacific whose existence would be threatened by rising sea levels as predicted by some.

Leading scientists and technical experts are telling governments all over the world that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities are increasing substantially. For instance, according to Environment Canada statistics the emissions of carbon dioxide, which I will refer to as CO2, in Canada alone are on a constant increase and represent by comparison to other nations 2 per cent of all emissions produced in the world. That is second only to the United States.

If we look at the statistics on a per capita basis then we as a nation are at the top of the list when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions. This is due to a number of understandable reasons. It has to do with our climate. It has to do with the great distances and size of our country. It has also to do with lifestyle.

However, the result of these emissions is to be found in an increase in average temperatures in the earth's surface. It is interesting to note there is clear evidence that the average surface temperature of the earth has gone up by half a degree Celsius over the past century. In the case of Canada alone it has been measured as having gone up by 1.1 degree Celsius. The 10 warmest years of the last 100 years have occurred and have been measured since 1980.

Consequently climate change was discussed at length and was almost central in the debates at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio. On that occasion Canada ratified with many other nations a convention which calls for governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to at least 1990 levels by the year 2000. We are very close to that date.

Recognizing the urgency of this issue and recognizing our international responsibilities, the government has actually made a further commitment. It is contained in the 1993 election campaign red book. This commitment is to cut by 20 per cent the carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005.

As a result of that commitment, federal-provincial negotiations have taken place at an intense pace over the past 10 months culminating with the meeting in Bathurst, New Brunswick a couple of weeks ago. On that occasion environment and energy ministers of the federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada discussed this matter at length.

We learned on that occasion from newspaper clippings that the representatives of the Alberta government were opposed to any regulations aimed at lowering carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. From the clippings we learned that Alberta wants a voluntary approach only and that this position is also favoured by certain industries. I quote from the Gazette of November 8 where we learned the following:

Alberta won't go along with a plan by Ottawa and other provinces for mandatory regulations to reduce carbon pollution and clean up the air. "We're not participating," Alberta's Ty Lund said yesterday as he emerged from a day of talks among Canada's environment ministers.

Mr. Lund, who is the environment minister for Alberta, scoffed at Ontario minister Bud Wildman's comment that some mandatory requirements would have to be put into place to cut

the amount of pollution from smoke stacks and car exhaust pipes.

The question is why is the Government of Alberta opposed to such regulations? Why does it support regulations in other sectors? It accepts regulations and support regulations in aviation, agriculture, health and hygiene, you name it, but it does not want regulations with respect to climate change. Why does the Alberta government not want to help in meeting an obligation to the world community and reduce greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide which is the most prevalent of all the greenhouse gases as we all know?

On the other hand, people in Alberta support the environment and we know that. People in Alberta understand the international obligation that we have. It seems to me that Alberta members of Parliament and senators have a role to play here in convincing the provincial government to co-operate.

In support of what I just said I will quote from the Globe and Mail of November 8. According to a poll taken by the Environics Research Group Ltd., the paper stated:

The public apparently supports change, too. The results of a poll of 1,500 adults taken in August and September showed strong support for strong measures, including majority approval of a 10 per cent increase in energy prices, if the money was used to cut pollution-

That is quite an interesting expression of public opinion. In the Gazette of the same day the same point is being made. It states:

Apparently, so does the Canadian public. Most people interviewed in a new poll said they would be willing to pay 10 per cent more for their energy if the money were redirected to reduce pollution.

Today and for the next three months leading into February the federal Minister of Natural Resources has a very difficult task of seeking the co-operation of provincial and territorial governments so that a national plan can be forged to reduce this type of dangerous emission.

The question is, does Alberta want to isolate itself from this effort? What good would it serve to be alone, saying no to an effort that will attempt to reach the desired goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and which cannot be left to the voluntary sector alone?

The question also arises here, to have a complete picture, is what needs to be done? Today's energy policies need to be looked at thoroughly and they need to undergo a profound change at the federal level of government as well as the provincial and municipal.

Let us take, for example, the federal level and in particular the federal Department of Natural Resources, formerly known as energy, mines and resources.

Here we find year after year in the budgets of that department, and particularly in the last 10 years, generous subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Alone in 1994 and 1995 natural resources, Canada's energy division, just one division within that department, expects to spend a total of $383 million.

Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that 87 per cent of this amount will be spent as grants and contributions with most of these funds going to fossil fuel projects? Only a very small portion goes to energy efficiency, energy conservation, and research into alternative sources of energy. In this day and age against the background of the climate change issue, this does not make sense any longer.

Look at the Department of Finance. Here we find generous tax rebates and tax expenditures all favouring the Canadian fossil fuel industry. Actually, if one looks over a period of time, for years the fossil fuel industry sector has enjoyed extremely generous subsidies in the form of outright grants, tax deferments, write-offs, loans, loan guarantees, and exploration subsidies. You name it, Mr. Speaker.

Every year, according to the calculations we have conducted, the federal government gives over $5 billion in the form of tax concessions to the fossil fuel sector. Over $5 billion in tax concessions. If you apply to this amount a tax rate of 20 per cent, this kind of assistance or hand-out, depending on how you want to call it, results in over $1 billion in lost revenue.

As recently as October 1993 during the last campaign, some $85 million was given to the Lloydminster heavy oil upgrader which finally had to be cancelled some six weeks ago. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for that decision. It had to be cancelled after a loss incurred on the part of the taxpayers of Canada of some $945 million.

The amount of $85 million that was made available in October 1993 exceeds by some $20 million the entire 1994 budget for the efficiency and alternate energy program. I repeat, the amount that was given to the Lloydminster project, on its deathbed if you like, exceeded by $20 million the entire 1994 budget for the efficiency and alternate energy program.

This does make sense. There is no coherence in these kinds of financial decisions and budgetary decisions.

To make things worse, the 1994-95 funding for approved efficiency and renewable energy projects was cut back because of budget constraints. In addition, the government in Ottawa currently has a large sum invested in fossil fuel megaprojects, notably Hibernia, which represents a commitment of some $3 billion.

If you put this picture against the background of Canada's commitment to stabilize and then reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent, these subsidies clearly must be examined

and must be reapplied and invested in new directions, first for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency and, second, in reducing over the long term our dependence on fossil fuels.

On energy efficiency we find that Canada's global competitors, including Japan, Germany, you name it, have enjoyed strong economic growth because many years ago they understood that energy efficiency means a measure that brings about economic advantages at the same time.

They adopted strong energy efficiency measures. We by comparison must admit that we still have a long way to go. Studies conducted in the United States, New Brunswick, Quebec, and British Columbia all confirm that investments in energy efficiency consistently create more jobs than investments in conventional energy supply projects.

A 1987 study by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which is back quite a while, concluded that investments in efficiency create an average of 19 direct and indirect jobs per every $1 million invested compared to an average of seven jobs per $1 million invested in oil and gas extraction. This is quite a stunning comparison for which we are indebted to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which, however, does not seem to be capable of putting its own findings into practice.

Clearly, money saved by industrial, commercial and residential investors in energy efficiency would be freed up and could be respent in other areas of the economy. According to a report for the British Columbia Energy Council by Marbek Resource Consultants and G.E. Bridges and Associates, this respending accounts for more than 50 per cent of all new jobs created and 90 per cent of the net jobs created over equal investments in conventional energy supply projects.

To conclude, if we are to act in our own self-interests for the long term and if we are to meet our obligations internationally because we want to behave as good members of the family of nations where the recognition has been made that there is a serious problem that must be dealt with, Canada needs a national plan on carbon dioxide as other nations already have. Those who do not have it are working at it quite laboriously.

This kind of national plan would set out for each province what each economic sector is to do and what each level of government can do through various means, through budgets, taxation measures, and regulations. All this would be done in order to achieve greater energy efficiency which is an economic plus to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and therefore slow down the trend in climate change. Finally, it would be to achieve for generations to come this very difficult but necessary, gradual shift in our dependence on fossil fuels to a dependence on renewable sources of energy.

[Great Whale Project, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the cancellation of the Great Whale hydroelectric project announced on November 18 represents a great victory for the Cree people. Under the fine leadership of Matthew Coon-Come they led a successful campaign mobilizing public opinion against this ill-conceived project.

Let us hope its cancellation will lead to the future adoption of policies whereby the environment will be taken into account before decisions are made. In this case no consideration was given to the fact that flooding would once again lead to the formation of methyl mercury which in turn poisons the fish and those who eat them.

Let us also hope that the era of large hydroelectric projects in Canada has come to an end and that future energy needs will be met through greater energy efficiency and conservation, through greater discipline in energy consumption and through intensified research on alternative and renewable sources of energy.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, November 21st, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-48, in new clause 6( a ), be amended by deleting the words ``integrated management and''.

Mr. Speaker, in setting the major goal for the new Department of Natural Resources, I would like to commend the minister for having made a change in committee following second reading debate in this House.

At that time the many goals of this bill included sustainable development but it came further down in a long list. Therefore it was almost interpreted as being an added on consideration of a low priority and prompted interventions to the effect that sustainable development ought to be the top priority of the newly established Department of Natural Resources.

Considering what has happened in the fisheries and considering the debates and the controversies in forestry, and considering the overall commitment by this government to the concept of sustainable development as announced and defined in 1987 by Madam Brundtland in the report entitled "Our Common Future", it would only stand to reason that sustainable development be given priority in the function and goals of the minister of this new department.

I am very pleased to congratulate the minister for having made this change in committee and having brought sustainable development into a place that corresponds to its importance for the future activity of this department.

I have to draw attention to the clause as presently drawn in the bill. It contains two concepts. It gives the natural resources minister responsibility with respect to integrated management of Canada's natural resources and sustainable development. In other words, it does two things in the manner that it is drafted now. It puts sustainable development in a secondary position to integrated management. Integrated management in the clause as it stands now, the goal as now defined, is first. It is followed by a subsequent secondary consideration in the way it could be interpreted in a court or by a judge or anyone who reads the bill, from the deputy minister to you name it, as a consideration that comes after integrated management.

I submit respectfully this sequence is to be examined and possibly reversed. I appeal to the minister to give this her closest positive consideration.

The second point that has to be made in this connection is that these two concepts, integrated management and sustainable development, could at times come in conflict and could not be neutrally supported.

Third, in the bill sustainable development, if it is not clearly defined, is clearly understood by way of the definition given in the Brundtland report and virtually universally accepted. Therefore we have as the major goal for the department a concept that is well defined, sustainable development. However, we cannot say the same for integrated management.

A situation could arise in forestry, in fisheries or in any other natural resource tomorrow, in 10 years or in 100 years whereby pursuing the principles of integrated management as it is proposed now would not be in the interest of sustainable development.

When there is such a conflict which of these two concepts will the minister of the day choose? Therefore to remove this ambivalence, to remove this dichotomy, to remove this uncertainty I am submitting by way of this motion an amendment to the particular portion of the bill whereby the Minister of Natural Resources has as a main responsibility the implementation of the principle of sustainable development and the clarification of other considerations related to management. I think it will make the task of the minister of the day clearer, politically saleable and also less in conflict with other considerations.

We have had too many experiences in recent years with natural resources where there was a visible conflict between a natural resource, concepts of management and sustainable development. It is time to cut this umbilical cord and give very clear direction to the department in charge of such an important natural resource for the long term.

We have sufficient examples that have already brought about the adoption of long term considerations on the part of this government, and I am glad to see the minister of fisheries in the Chamber who has done so already on a number of occasions, and very courageously so.

To support my argument I bring into the House the red book and the fact that one of the main chapters in the red book is devoted to the concept of sustainable development and not to integrated management. Sustainable development is one of the pillars of the policies of this government. It was our commitment during the election and today it is our commitment as well.

It would be a great pity if in launching the new Department of Natural Resources this commitment would be somehow derailed by considerations of integrated management of which we do not know the definition and of which there is no definition in the bill. It could be the detracting factor in the long term interest of natural resources which this department is expected to protect and enhance.

This is my argument and I rest my case.

[The Environment, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In 1990 the government of the day promised a discussion paper following which an oceans act would be introduced in the House. Neither the discussion paper nor the bill saw the light of day.

The proposed act would protect the quality of Canada's coastal waters and oceans. In view of the importance of three oceans to Canada's well-being I would like to ask the minister if he can indicate to us whether an oceans act will be introduced in the House?

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, some 12 days ago I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the date when Canada will ratify the law of the sea. It is most important that Canada take steps to ratify this comprehensive and overdue piece of international law.

The law of the sea is designed to protect the world's fisheries and to stop the pollution of the oceans. It contains the idea that ocean resources belong to humanity and that all of humanity is entitled to share in their benefits and use.

Canada signed this law some 12 years ago. It was one of the first nations to sign it. However, it has yet to ratify it, which is the second step required. The law of the sea will come into effect, into force so to say, in two days, on November 16, 1994. Sixty countries have now ratified it and that is the number required to get the convention working.

Of the 60 nations that have ratified it all but two, Iceland and Malta, are developing countries. It is therefore necessary to make the point that to be truly effective this legislation or this law should have universal support, including that of the major developed countries and marine powers. There is no doubt about that.

Being one of the first countries which signed the law of the sea, it puts Canada in an advantageous position because it could play a role in setting up the institutions which will enforce this particular convention. It is our hope therefore that Canada will have the possibility to appoint a Canadian judge to the law of the sea tribunal and also have a seat on the council of this decision making international body.

Apparently the reason Canada is so late is that there were concerns about some particular provisions including deep seabed mining which somehow echo the policies we also heard in Washington. It is my understanding these issues have now been resolved, including the main concerns to ensure that Canadian law is compatible with the convention.

In conclusion, as I said Canada was one of the most ardent promoters of the law of the sea convention. It is a great pity to see Canada somehow reluctantly joining the world community instead of being among the 60 signatories required to get the convention going. It seems to me that Canada would be very well served by ratifying this convention. This is a landmark piece of international negotiation in international law.

Tonight I am asking our distinguished parliamentary secretary to confirm that Canada will ratify the law of the sea convention before the end of the year.