House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was development.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Davenport (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 67% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Bankruptcy Act October 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, on October 3 I asked the Minister of the Environment a question about the toxic substances policy she announced on September 27. I asked her when the measures on pesticides would be implemented and what the timeframe for the policy was.

The minister replied that she had the intention of introducing implementing legislation in the early spring. Some suggestions might therefore be in place here tonight.

The goals of this toxic policy are as follows. First, to virtually eliminate from the environment substances that are the result of human activity, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. Second, to ensure that all other substances of concern are adequately managed throughout their use so that there is minimum impact on the environment and human health.

Those substances which are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic are to be virtually eliminated from the environment through a management program that ensures "no measurable release" of each substance. However, when it comes to substances which cannot be controlled, measures will be taken to prevent their generation and use. The onus will be on industry to demonstrate that the proposed management program will ensure that there is no measurable release of the substances into the environment.

The first point that I need to make here tonight is that if we are to have a sound toxic policy in Canada we must ensure that it is based on sound concepts. Clearly pollution prevention is at the crux of this policy. Is it adequate to say that pollution prevention is the control of the release of toxic substances rather than the reduction in their generation and use? Will control of release be adequate to protect human health and the environment?

Second, the term reverse onus is used throughout the discussion paper. Reverse onus is actually intended to mean that no production or use of substances is allowed until it is proven that these substances are not toxic. This burden is intended to fall upon industry and not on the government. Therefore I would suggest the proposed reverse onus should be expended so as to apply to proving the safety of the substances first and then to the management plans.

Third, the definition of toxicity. It is based on the Environment Protection Act definition which states that the substance is toxic if it is present in the environment and in a quantity or concentration that may have a harmful effect on the environment or may cause an endangerment to human health.

Why not then adopt a definition of toxicity that does not have thresholds so high that the scope and effectiveness of the policy is thwarted? For example the policy proposed by the government is intended to apply to all substances used and released into the environment. Is this definition broad enough? Should it not include threats posed to human health on sites where these substances are used prior to the release of the substance into the environment?

Fourth, the concern that for a substance to be considered toxic it must meet certain threshold levels in three different criteria; persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity. For some reason the proposed policy contains threshold levels that are often higher, less stringent than those proposed by the Ontario government, the priority substance list of the Environment Protection Act. Should we not ensure that we have stringent threshold levels to ensure the safety of human health and the environment?

To conclude, the success or failure of the proposed toxics policy rests on definitions and criteria. If they are too weak then the rest of the policy will be ineffective.

My question to the minister is will the proposed definitions and levels be re-examined and brought up to levels required to protect all life in the long term?

Violence October 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the shooting at a Brockton school compels us to think about violence and its prevention.

Clearly the possession of handguns is not a right but a privilege which must be tightly regulated. The weapon used at Brockton was illegal. The student fired a gun because he felt threatened economically. He reacted with an unacceptable violent act and ended up in jail.

How can violence be prevented if weapons are available illegally? Would longer sentences curb violence? Apparently not, judging from the United States.

I believe we must look at the root causes of violence, what we teach youngsters including through TV and videos, the adequacy of mental health services, economic and job security, adequate social housing and community services.

Clearly the roots of violence are to be found in society and family. In the end we will be more successful in preventing violence through socioeconomic measures and by doing away with the glorification of violence.

Nuclear Testing October 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is about nuclear tests and is for the Prime Minister who I wish well on his trip to China.

Since 1964 Britain has carried out 44 nuclear tests, France 210, and the United States over 1,000. Two weeks ago China carried out its 41st test.

Would the Prime Minister on his visit to Beijing raise with the Chinese authorities the need to set a good example to the world community and bring to an end testing for the sake of planetary security?

The Environment October 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of the Environment on last week's announcement on the toxic substances policy in order to protect human health and the ecosystem.

When will the minister put into effect the important measures she announced regarding pesticides? How long will it take before the overall policy is fully implemented?

Petitions September 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition signed by a large number of Canadians from many provinces including Ontario and Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.

It calls upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to ratify the law of the sea. Among the many reasons given for this very important step, Canadian failure to ratify the law of the sea by November of this year would jeopardize Canada's eligibility to participate in the law of the sea dispute settlement tribunal and decision making council.

Endangered And Threatened Species Act September 28th, 1994

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is to protect biodiversity. It is aimed at identifying, protecting and rehabilitating endangered and threatened species and is a step toward the overall protection of Canada's biodiversity.

In addition to identifying, protecting and rehabilitating flora and fauna in Canada when threatened or endangered by human activity, the Minister of the Environment would also have powers to develop and implement programs to restore the

populations of threatened and endangered species to self-sustain the numbers.

Combined with the Canada Wildlife Act, strengthened by amendments in June of this year, this bill is intended to help ensure the protection of Canada's biodiversity and to enhance the biodiversity convention adopted at the UN Conference on the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janiero in 1992.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed).

Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. member's intervention, I was wondering about his thoughts on the future of Canada's forests since he comes from an area where the forests are so well managed and where an experiment was carried out by the Vernon provincial district in the marketing of lumber.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, until 1985 the forestry department was part of the Environment Canada department. It was put in that department because it was felt that forestry seen from an environmental perspective is managed with concerns also for wildlife, water and biodiversity considerations. That holistic approach was valid then as it is today.

Would the hon. member favour a move whereby the department of forests would again become part of Environment Canada?

Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be treated as an expert when you are not one. Coming from the great agricultural riding of Davenport, one would perhaps expect more from me. The most important natural resource we have is the human resource in this country. We all agree on that.

Whether top soil for farming should be the next one-it may be so-I do not know. I know that the Senate in 1983, particularly Senator Sparrow, produced a very interesting report on the losses in top soil. That report has been languishing since 1984. He even went so far as quantifying the yearly losses in dollars in top soil, which was a unique feat by our historical standards.

I should urge the hon. member to get a copy of Senator Sparrow's report and perhaps ask questions of the minister tomorrow.

Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Davenport were on an ego trip he would certainly want to tackle this question fully and give a very comprehensive answer.

We do already have taxes on fossil fuels. Every time we buy gasoline at the pump we pay some hefty provincial and federal taxes; those taxes already exist.

If the thrust of the question of the hon. member is whether I would recommend policies related to the introduction of a carbon tax then we are talking of something completely different. A tax on gasoline or on coal or on gas as I said exists already and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An additional tax would not be a carbon tax. It would be a fake carbon tax. It would be more of the same. It would be nothing new.

A carbon tax is a massive change from the present system of taxation that we have on income and labour and investment and flow of capital to a system of taxation that would be taxing consumption and mainly anything that relates to consumption of fossil fuels.

It is an enormous political somersault, if I may use that term. It would be a big step for which we are not ready and so since we are all more or less realists, and in my caucus I do not have the reputation of being a great realist but I still have my feet on the ground, to recommend a carbon tax would be asking for something for which we are not equipped politically or otherwise.

Sooner or later we will have to cross that bridge if the trend identified by scientists continues. These are not Marxist or left-wing scientists, these are meteorologists at the United Kingdom University of East Anglia, for instance, who have recently produced a map indicating that over the last 30 years

there has been a change in annual temperatures. There has been a change in average winter temperatures.

I would be glad to show the hon. member a map to that effect, which in essence shows that the increase in average temperatures that has taken place over the last 30 years shows a considerable warming in certain parts of the world.

This warming has led to the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic caps. This melting has produced a certain flow of cold water into the northwest Atlantic and some other oceans, which could be an explanation for the fact that certain fisheries have disappeared.

I am saying that if this trend continues and we have over the next 30 years another +1.5C as an average increase-thus amounting to +3C-we will be in for some big problems because the water levels of our coastal cities will be higher. We will have to do some basic coastal public works.

The livelihood and the survival of millions of people in certain parts of the Pacific where the islands rise only a metre or a metre and a half above sea level will be in serious danger. Scientists are speaking about the flooding of some one-quarter of Bangladesh.

We will see the movement toward the north of agriculture and of forests. In other words, we will have a completely different set of natural resources and of problems resulting from that. It may be for the next generation of politicians.

Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994

Well, that may be an expression of relief for the present, but the chickens are coming home to roost sooner or later and we will have to cross that bridge at the proper time.

Moving into forestry, we can ask ourselves: Are our forest policies sustainable? This is a sector in which we must apply the concept of sustainability. There is a considerable debate in Canada on what constitutes a forest and a sustainable forestry. Is the volume of forest really the best indicator of the state of our forest resources, one can ask. Does increasing the cubic metre figures make up for loss of forest and species diversity? Is volume really the only criterion we should be examining? Or does the loss of area of old growth forest not represent an important factor if we think of future generations, if we think of biodiversity?

All of us know that one tree does not make a forest, of course. Today many Canadians and many regions of the world are undertaking alternative and sustainable forestry practices. In that respect British Columbia is a fascinating example of new ideas. All of us know there are alternatives to large cuts which destroy forests. There are much better alternatives to clear cutting. There are alternatives which would permit the protection of wildlife habitat. There are alternatives which would permit the retention of biodiversity.

Perhaps this is not the time nor the place to open the debate on clear cuts, especially when one has only 20 minutes. However, we know that our past performance with clear cuts has earned us a very bad reputation abroad.

If the purpose of the new department as it is spelled out in clause 6(f) on page 3 is to participate "in the enhancement and promotion of market access for Canada's natural resources products and technical surveys industries, both domestically and internationally" then we must pay very close attention to our forest practices. Those practices are being watched from abroad and our future export opportunities in forest products hinges on them.

In that respect, I would like to pay homage to the forestry code introduced last spring I believe by the Government of British Columbia. I want to express the hope that this forestry code will not only be given the necessary regulations soon but also the necessary funds to be enforced effectively because it is through measures of that kind that we can establish for Canada a good reputation abroad with respect to forestry practices.

We can also ask ourselves what is the role of the forest services of Canada. Is it one to perform only scientific research? Is it one to look for industrial opportunities only? Is it one that is also to give guidance and leadership in forest practices for the

rest of the nation? Suddenly after all these years the time has come to examine the mandate of forestry Canada and to determine whether it is still adequate in a changing world as we approach the 21st century.

Moving on to mining, we can also ask ourselves whether our mining practices are sustainable. Obviously this matter needs to be given some close attention. It seems to me that instead of having policies that encourage our production and consumption, our policies should be focused on resource reduction, the development of new materials and greater momentum to recycling so that the results will be in decreased mining activities, mining wastes, water consumption, pollution, deforestation and erosion.

In this respect, in recent years the car industry in particular has made enormous progress with new materials and in general Canadian industry has made considerable progress, although not as good as other nations, in achieving energy efficiency in the consumption of energy per unit of production. We have come a considerable distance but we still have a long way to go if we want to emulate and do as well as Japan and other OECD countries. Compared with those countries we are not doing as well.

Having attempted to set out some principles that could guide us in the management of our natural resources and in the implementation of this bill once it is proclaimed, the Department of Natural Resources has a very important role to play. It would be desirable if it were to apply principles and practices that are sustainable and that apply the concept of sustainability for the long term.

We are, after the Rio conference of 1992, coming around the corner in an effort to ensuring that we have a sustainable development that takes into account the economy and the environment. We must make sure that this agreement by the global community which took place in Rio de Janeiro two years ago is implemented and brought into the legislatures of this country.

I will conclude by again congratulating the minister for having introduced this bill. It is of paramount importance. It is good to see that the concept of sustainable development has somehow found its way into it but it must be given greater prominence; actually, it should be given primacy. Once that is done important principles of the application of that concept will need to be fleshed out so as to give direction to the department in the decades ahead.