Charles Caccia

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 4th, 1994]

Is 40,000 becquerels of tritium in a litre of drinking water considered a safe level?

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 4th, 1994]

With respect to the buried radioactive waste at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's Chalk River plant, (a) to what extent, if any, has tritium spread into the environment within a radius of 50 kilometres, (b) to what extent has tritium been measured in drinking water and is this considered a safe level, (c) is the disposal site safely insulated and (d) is there any danger to humans emanating from the disposal site?

[Climate Change, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is on climate change and is for the Minister of the Environment.

Next week provincial and federal environment and energy ministers will meet to discuss the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to deal with climate change.

Can the minister indicate to this House what kind of co-operation would be needed from the provinces and from the private sector in order to reach the desired target of minus 20 per cent in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005?

[Law Of The Sea, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The law of the sea is designed to protect the world's fisheries and to stop pollution in the oceans. Canada signed that law 12 years ago but has yet to ratify it.

Given the fact that the law of the sea will come into force in two weeks and it is not ratified by Canada, would the parliamentary secretary tell this House the precise date when the Government of Canada will ratify this important international law?

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 2nd, 1994]

With respect to the World Cup Soccer games and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), ( a ) did CBC submit any bid for TV broadcasting in Canada for the 1994 games, (i) if yes, how much did it bid, (ii) if no, why not and ( b ) will CBC commit itself to compete for broadcasting rights in Canada for the 1998 World Cup soccer games?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he would urge the Prime Minister on his visit to Beijing to raise with Chinese authorities the need to end nuclear testing for the sake of planetary security.

The non-proliferation treaty, or NPT, was signed in 1968 by approximately 160 nations. As part of this treaty countries with nuclear weapons have agreed to work toward the reduction of their nuclear arsenals and to work toward a comprehensive test ban treaty. Developing countries agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for information regarding peaceful uses of nuclear power.

However since 1964, Britain has carried out some 44; France, 210; and the United States more than 1,000 nuclear tests. During the last few years testing has virtually been suspended. Since 1991 Russia has not tested any weapons nor has the United States. Britain has not undertaken any testing in recent years either. All major countries have put in place voluntary moratoria.

Two weeks ago the Government of China carried out its 41st test. Therefore in addition to my earlier question to the Prime Minister, tonight I am asking the minister of external affairs whether he will personally take an interest in the negotiations of the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which will run out in 1995.

Will Canada play a leadership role at the United Nations? Will Canada on behalf of all Canadians press the UN for a new treaty? Will that new treaty, first, ban the use of all nuclear weapons and weapons tests, and second, provide for better enforcement powers to the International Atomic Energy Agency so that better comprehensive monitoring of compliance can be carried out on behalf of the world community?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for his support for the bill before us today. I would like to inform him that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development will be in his part of the world one month from now. We will be holding public hearings in Vancouver on December 1, 2 and 3. At the urging of his hon. colleague, the member for Comox-Alberni, we will be examining some of the issues that he raised in the House this afternoon, particularly the condition of water in the Fraser Valley River estuary. If there is a link between the condition of air quality, the smog that he referred to and the chemicals that are emitted into the atmosphere by various activities in his region, we will have an opportunity to look at that as well.

The Liberal administration in Parliament is certainly moving swiftly along the track that he is recommending this afternoon.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is a well-established rule that a chair of a committee should play as impartial a role as possible. Not only that, but the chair should not take a route or a position before an analysis and examination of a bill takes place in committee. The member for Davenport happens to be the chair of the committee on the environment and sustainable development. It really would not be appropriate to indicate what he would entertain or support, considering the fact that in most cases the decision is made by the members with the chair abstaining.

I am sure the government, having introduced this amendment, will be willing to look at any positive contributions made in order to make the legislation more effective.

I would like to give that assurance to the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his question. Regarding peace, order and good government I would not recommend that this amendment be put in the legislation at this particular point in time. I think it would become the object of incredibly acrimonious debates and could endanger the entire exercise. It is better that that provision remain where it is now and that it be invoked as sparingly as possible. It should be therefore considered as an item that would not be invoked in single legislation as in the case of Bill C-13.

Regarding the trigger mechanism, I have extreme difficulties in answering that question. I would also like to know where that mechanism ought to be placed and when it ought to be put into motion. It is more than a technical question; it is a very important political question. I would like to study that matter in more depth before trying to give an adequate answer.

I am sure the hon. member with his political and legal knowledge has one in his pocket. I would rather look at his before I make up my mind.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of the Environment for introducing these amendments today which are in keeping with the promise made in the red book. I would like to make some brief comments on the interventions by the member for Laurentides when she spoke after the minister today.

The hon. member started her analysis by referring to the fact that the bill being introduced today which amends the existing legislation and the existing legislation have no resemblance with the original bill known as Bill C-78 that was introduced when the present leader of the Bloc Quebecois was Minister of the Environment. She added that some 150 amendments were made during the lifetime of that bill before it was proclaimed. That statement is quite accurate; I was here and she was not. I remember very well that a number of amendments were made having been proposed by representatives of the NDP, the Conservative Party and my party.

In that process of amending it we did what is done with any major legislation, namely we improved it. We improved it within the limits imposed by the bill itself. Therefore that bill, known as Bill C-78 and subsequently as Bill C-13, has the thrust, the scope and the four corners, to use the parliamentary language, that the original bill had. In that respect the member for Laurentides unfortunately is wrong.

The hon. member objected to the fact that the final legislation introduced the term and definition of sustainable development. In evolving time considering the progress that term has made in its interpretation it has become natural and almost obvious that sustainable development was introduced as one of the objectives

of that legislation. I am sure that if the then Minister of the Environment and now leader of the Bloc Quebecois had been in the position of the present Minister of the Environment, he would have proposed the definition to be inserted in the bill himself. It goes without saying.

The member for Laurentides went on to say that fellow citizens will not tolerate quibbling between federal and provincial politicians. Having made that statement with which we all agree she then devoted the rest of her speech to an analysis of the situation which revealed a profound desire to disagree with the federal jurisdiction as if she were a provincial politician. She even brought into the discussion a judgment of the Supreme Court in order to make her case.

She was repeatedly dissatisfied or annoyed at the fact that the present Minister of the Environment in her speech today was referring frequently to her leader, as if that were a sign of lack of respect for his present political role, having changed sides, so to say.

Of course, the hon. member indicated several times that her main concern in relation to the bill introduced today is one that she would interpret to perform a role that would be tantamount to an arrogant attempt to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. We are not aware of any other province interpreting this bill in that manner. Actually this bill is supported by and large by provinces. No one has seen this bill as an arrogant encroachment.

What the member for Laurentides failed to recognize in her speech is that if the federal government wanted to encroach on the jurisdiction of any province it could do so under the provision of peace, order and good government. It could intervene anytime but it does not. That is the point. It does not do so because there is an unwritten understanding that the peace, order and good government clause is to be used only in extreme cases when necessity makes it absolutely unavoidable but only in such cases.

Therefore to proclaim to the world that this bill is an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction is sheer nonsense. There is air, water and a variety of natural resources that all levels of government share in the name of the Canadian people. No province is exempt from that. Neither is the federal government exempt from that basic sense of accountability in relation to these natural resources.

The member for Laurentides went on to say that this bill is a demonstration of the centralizing vision of the federal government. I invite any member of the Bloc Quebecois to get up in this House and support this statement.

The member for Laurentides went on to say that national standards are being imposed. Tell us which national standards are being imposed. We are searching for national standards. The exchange of questions with the member for Fraser Valley West already showed how much of an openness of mind there is in the search for national standards. It is a very difficult exercise. It is much more complex than the wall to wall standardization to which the member for Terrebonne referred in his reply. It is a difficult exercise, no doubt.

The hon. member went on to say that Ottawa could force any Quebec project to come under assessment. This is stretching it a bit too far. As I said earlier, Ottawa could do that without this bill under peace, order and good government if it really wanted to but it does not do so. To claim that is a political expedient in this House to unnecessarily whip up feelings among constituents in Quebec.

The hon. member went on to quote a distinguished but unknown lawyer in Quebec commenting on this legislation. It is not difficult these days to find lawyers to comment one way or another on any piece of legislation. Then she went on to put on record an editorial by a writer well known for her objectivity, Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir . Apparently she has written that Ottawa is taking over Quebec's energy policy by means of this legislation. How absurd can one be? How can one make that statement seriously? We must bring this debate down to earth and analyse the legislation for what it is and what it attempts to do.

In a flight of desperation, the member for Laurentides announced to the world that the federal government is attempting to squash economic development in Quebec. At that point I had a moment of dismay because I thought it was a very unfortunate statement on the part of the critic for the environment for the Bloc Quebecois. At that point she revealed that she was not speaking as critic for the environment. She was speaking perhaps as a political person instructed to demonstrate that federal-provincial relations a priori cannot work in this country.

However, if she were critic for the environment she would have not let her guard down and allowed herself to be accused of seeing the economy as separate from the environment as she did with her statement. She should know better.

We have reached the conclusion in this Chamber, in all the parties represented in this House, in their contained literature, at the OECD in Paris and in Rio in 1992 that there is a strong link between the environment and the economy. In some quarters the economic thinking has gone even so far as to say that there is no economy without the environment, although that vision has not

yet become official in those institutions and agencies. However, we are moving in that direction inevitably so.

For the official critic for the environment for the Bloc Quebecois to make a statement in which she dissociates the economy from the environment I thought was very unfortunate. She talked like an old-fashioned economist, an economist of 100 years ago perhaps, not as a critic for the environment, not as a politician who understands the importance of integrating the economy with the environment, not as a politician who understands that in the end the environment is the first and major consideration if we want to have a healthy economy.

The speech by the member for Laurentides, I am afraid to say, reveals a profound and serious conceptual weakness.

To conclude on that intervention, I found in essence the speech really was activating the flames of confrontational federalism instead of searching for the answers through a form of co-operative federalism which was done I thought so effectively by many other speakers today and in particular by the member for Comox-Alberni whose intervention I found extremely helpful. We may perhaps have different political views but his intervention in outlining where he finds the bill weak and where he finds agreement with the bill is extremely helpful. I thank him for that.

He asked a very key question which was dealt with briefly but I would like to go over it for a moment. His question was what if-one of those famous what ifs-the minister does not call for a review and there is too much ministerial discretion? That is certainly a point that we have to examine and to which the parliamentary secretary gave an interesting answer. He said he believed that in such a case there would probably be profound public displeasure, profound public and media criticism and that would be the corrective action that would take place.

It is a very legitimate question to ask. It falls perfectly within the classic jurisdiction of the opposition to do so. I certainly find that question worth pursuing in search of a desirable satisfactory answer.

Another question by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was how the bill would apply to the First Nations. He wants clarification on that aspect and we will certainly seek it.

In essence it seems that this bill is serving the agenda of the Bloc Quebecois in terms of demonstrating that federalism does not work because of certain actions taken by Ottawa. That is a very regrettable political line to adopt. It is unfortunate and it is not in the interest of Canadians no matter where they live.

If we were to assume just for a moment that Quebec were sovereign, it would be the government of Quebec that would be seeking from its neighbours the type of environmental security and understanding and processes that this bill and the legislation which this bill intends to amend is offering right now. It would be one of the first steps of any new government. It is difficult to understand the logic of the Bloc Quebecois in criticizing a bill that is already in place, to which improvements are being made, to an unacceptable measure under federalism but which it would be pursuing and very actively so if it was sovereign in the sense it is pursuing it at the present time.

There is a contradiction here which does not make sense and which I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because it seems that it goes to the root of the debate today on Bill C-56.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are giving me the signal that my time is up. I thank you for your consideration.