Charles Caccia

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the region I come from in metro Toronto we look at natural resources in terms of attachment because we have so few of them.

It is interesting to note that in many municipalities we have a department of urban forestry. We do have a regional conservation authority of great significance. We have citizens' participation and action in the cleaning up of our rivers. In other words, we have an attachment to water, soil and the natural resources probably because we are urban Canadians.

We do not have obsessions about jurisdiction. We think that the few trees and the few rivers we have belong to us as municipal dwellers, as provincial dwellers and as Canadians as a whole. However, we have in common with everybody across the country the preoccupation about the future of these resources. This is what my intervention will focus on this afternoon.

I congratulate the minister for introducing this important bill. I praise her for including a reference to sustainable development in clause 6(d) under the powers, duties and functions of the minister.

I would urge the minister to consider a better treatment of the concept of sustainable development. In this bill it comes after the minister's duty of co-ordinating, promoting and recommending certain policies with respect to natural resources and explosives. It comes after assisting in the development and promotion of Canadian scientific and technological capabilities. It comes after participating in the development and application of codes and standards. It finally appears as the fourth item. It is in clause 6(d) in having regard to the integrated management of Canada's natural resources. That is where we find sustainable development.

I urge the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the committee to take a page from Bill C-46, the bill to establish the Department of Industry which we debated yesterday. Look at clause 5 of that bill where the concept of sustainable development is outlined in the first part under the powers exercised by the minister. It says that the minister shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions in a manner that will promote sustainable development. It comes as the number one overall consideration.

It would make sense because in clause 2 of Bill C-48 there is a very good definition of sustainable development. Actually, it is the word for word definition given in the 1987 Brundtland report. We applaud the minister and the government for having done so. This definition has become the turning point in our way of thinking, in our way of placing the environment and the economy in a new context.

Therefore it would make sense that in a bill of such importance relating to our natural resources that sustainable development would not rank as an afterthought in the fourth clause dealing with the powers of the minister. It should be elevated to the first and stand on its own without any reference to words like integrated management, the meaning of which we really do not know. There is no definition of integrated management in clause 2 but there is a definition of sustainable development. In that sense it is hoped that a suitable amendment will be moved in committee and the matter resolved along these lines.

What does sustainable development mean? It is important that we enter into this debate with some principles on what will be guiding future ministers and officials over the next 10 or 20 years when they apply this legislation.

Reduced to its basic elements, sustainable development is a concept that stresses the importance of integrating the economy with the environment. It means that when we pursue growth, we pursue it with environmental, economic, social and even cultural concerns in mind. That is what sustainable development is intended to imply.

From that general concept we would want to know what are the principles which come under that general heading. How should we be guided in the management of our resources when we say: "We accept the concept of sustainable development; it is in the act. We have a general definition. Now what does it really mean? Could you tell us?"

In search of these elements the first principle would be to integrate the economy with the environment and make those goals convergent rather than in conflict. They can be convergent and mutually reinforcing rather than in conflict.

Also, it would require applying accounting practices that would indicate to the nation that when we cut down a forest or when we fish, in other words when we reduce our stock of natural resources, that shows up in our national accounts as a loss and not just as a revenue. While there is definitely a revenue when a forest is cut down, that asset is gone for the next 95 or 110 years. Therefore, we must know of the loss in our national accounting of that asset. This form of accounting is badly needed.

Another principle that could be adopted is to ensure that the stock of natural resources is not drawn down from the present acceptable and desirable levels. The stock of our natural resources should not only be maintained but also improved. Its quality should also be improved wherever possible. This is not just for us and our requirements but for future generations. It is this preoccupation with the long term, this preoccupation with the years 2050 or 3000 which makes the concept of sustainable

development so important and so politically attractive. It looks at the long term, the future.

Another principle is an operative one. In the application of this act everything within the power of the minister should be done to prevent climate change. Why? Because we know that climate change means also a change in our natural resources. It would mean a change in the location of agriculture. It would probably mean a shift toward the north of our forests. It could have a profound effect on our fisheries. It impacts on our natural resources. I cannot think of another principle as important for the Minister of Natural Resources than that of preventing climate change.

If we look at the policies of today, it is legitimate to ask ourselves: Are our energy policies sustainable? If we look at the way we spend our public funds in terms of energy, we find that for every dollar the Government of Canada spends to promote energy efficiency, it spends over $100 in support of the fossil fuel industry. This support increases pollution and supports dependence on non-renewable resources. This support has a negative impact on climate change.

If we look at the 1990 accounts, the latest for which figures are available, what do we find? We find that the value of tax deductions by the oil and gas industry in Canada amounted to some $5.8 billion. With these deductions the government lost some $1.2 billion in revenue. The current expenditures by the Government of Canada to the energy sector are close to $700 million. Of that amount only 5 per cent goes to research and development on alternative energy sources.

I do not need to stress the importance of research and development in alternative energy sources and the importance of changing our dependence in energy from non-renewable to renewable sources. Everybody knows that.

That means that under this act and the new minister's commitment to sustainable development it is desirable to have a profound shift in the department's budget. It should move rapidly from a budget on which the emphasis is on non-renewable to renewable sources of energy and should move more rapidly to the implementation of policies that reinforce and accelerate the movement toward more efficient use of energy.

I am not talking of a carbon tax, although we all know that one day the concept of a carbon tax will have to be tackled if we are serious about the question of climate change. However, the political moment has not yet arrived.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member for Frontenac that the best guarantee is the fact that the minister has included in Clause 5 of his bill, about his new department's objectives, two very important key words for the first time, and that is a good start, a good promise, if you will.

Of course, the law must be enforced and the purpose of today's debate is, I think, to provide the minister and his department with the guidelines needed to promote the two key words "sustainable development". I hope that, as we are doing today in this House, the new government elected in Quebec City will also pass legislation aimed at promoting sustainable development. I am sure that the hon. member for Frontenac, given his influence with his colleagues in Quebec's National Assembly, will lobby, make representations to his provincial colleagues. The state of the St. Lawrence River is the result of past policies but today here in this House we are discussing the future. We are talking about the new behaviour for the industry of the future.

I am sure that if the Government of Quebec does the same thing, sets the same goal for provincially-regulated industries, we will see considerable changes in the St. Lawrence River and in all other rivers in the country. But we must exert pressure, we must say that solutions exist and we must, of course, finds ways to demonstrate that the economy and the environment can be integrated.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill today is of historical importance for its significance and also because it coincides almost to the day with the seventh anniversary of the presentation of the Brundtland report, Our Common Future , to the United Nations General Assembly where it was extensively discussed and received unanimous support.

The words sustainable development re-emerged as a result of that event. It is very heartening to see that the Minister of Industry has inserted the term sustainable development in clause 5 of his bill. It is also heartening because when the minister was in opposition he urged the government of the day to use the term sustainable development when a bill was introduced at that time for the formation of the previous ministry. Unfortunately those pressures fell on deaf ears.

In this respect the minister has shown that he has carried out in government what he had spoken about while in the opposition. That is very reassuring for anyone who believes that our political system is alive and kicking and in good health.

What does the term sustainable development mean? It is the key phrase in clause 5 of this bill. Does it mean a growth in which the environment and the economy are seen in conflict? Does it mean a philosophy of imposing limits to growth? Does it mean returning the planet to a hypothetical natural state? Evidently the answer to these questions is no.

Sustainable development means integrating the economy with the environment. This is not a relationship of conflict. The environment and the economy are mutually reinforcing. The terminology recognizes this fact.

Sustainable development means learning to recognize and live within the limits of physical impact beyond which degradation of the ecosystems, of resources and of human condition becomes inevitable and progressive.

Some limits are imposed by the impact of existing technologies and social organization and by the size of the planet but many limiting factors can be expanded through technological changes, modes of decision making, changes in domestic and international policies, and through investment in human capital.

Since the 1987 Brundtland report there has been a lively debate over the specific conditions of sustainability. At this point we can say that sustainability is as much a social goal as it is an economic and environmental goal. It resembles other worldly, widely accepted and conceptually difficult social goals such as democracy, justice and public health.

Since the 1992 earth summit in Rio the global community finds itself in a state of transition from unsustainable to the search for sustainable forms of development. With this bill we are now beginning to come around the corner, so to speak. The fact that the Minister of Industry decided to insert sustainable development as a main objective of his department is very heartening. He should be congratulated.

What are the principles that the officials in this new department should adopt in order to reach the objective of sustainable development? One, as I mentioned briefly, it is the fact that the environment and the economy must be integrated in the decision making process. This is probably the most important condition for sustainable development and also the most challenging.

Too often policies are directly against the requirements of sustainability.

The environment is introduced into the decision making only after a problem has developed. At that late date options are usually limited to investments for end of pipe technologies to recapture emissions from waste streams and put them somewhere else.

This leads to the still dominant mentality that a conflict exists between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. It is a false perception of course. We must make both mutually reinforcing, namely a healthy environment with a healthy economy. Integrated decisions have to be made at the front end of the development when goals and policies are being set, not at the end where costs are staggering, as in the case of acid rain abatement and as in the case of a number of other issues. However now is not the proper time or place to list these. Therefore, to conclude this point a fundamental reorganization of economic policies and priorities is needed.

Second, energy. In North America and in most OECD countries conventional energy sources, namely coal, oil, nuclear, gas, attract large subsidies. Total energy subsidies in the United States alone have been estimated at more than $40 billion annually. In Canada the last time we conducted an estimate on this item the figure came close to almost $5 billion in subsidies.

End of pipe technologies to improve the safety and reduce emissions where available cannot even begin to compete with the opposite efforts of these huge and indirect subsidies. Energy is a key policy field in order to achieve sustainable development.

Third, agriculture. Taxpayers and consumers of OECD countries spend well over $250 billion a year on agricultural subsidies. They not only encourage farmers to expend their basic farm capital; namely soil, water, trees, they also promote over production. This gives rise to demands for trade protection and export subsidies to enable those food products to be dumped in developing countries, thus in turn undermining their agriculture

as well. Here again end of pipe measures for soil and water conservation programs are too weak to compete with these subsidies.

Fourth, the nature of production. If high rates of growth are to be achieved and maintained a significant and rapid reduction in the energy and raw materials content of every unit of production is necessary. A healthy economy will no longer be one that uses increasing amounts of energy, materials, and resources to produce more goods, more jobs, more income.

This assumption still dominates policies in energy, agriculture, and other resource sectors unfortunately. It is a leftover from the mass economy of the industrial age marked by a steady expansion in the production of energy, depletion of resources and degradation of the environment.

The link between growth and its impact on the environment can be severed. The sustainable development economy, the new economy, is more efficient, uses less energy, less resources for every unit of production, uses more information, uses more intelligence.

Industry, if driven by the principles of sustainable development, is discovering a number of things. For instance it can redesign industrial processes which require less and more flexible capital plant. It can recycle and reuse by-products. It can invent products that use lighter and more durable materials and that require less energy to produce.

Industry is discovering that with reduced energy and material content, it can save an overall cost per unit of production and reduce environmental emissions and wastes. This is a far more effective way of reducing emissions than expensive end of pipe technologies that serve no other purpose. In addition resource reduction and recycling lead back to the beginning of the production cycle. They result in decreased mining and mining wastes, decreased water consumption and pollution, decreased deforestation and erosion.

Moving from unsustainable to sustainable development requires a shift in the government's agenda, a shift not only in the Department of Industry but also in the Department of Natural Resources, of trade, transport, agriculture, public works, external affairs, in our procurement policies, in the production of energy.

The Minister of Industry is leading in this respect but he cannot do it alone. A clear indication of whether a government is shifting its agenda to address sustainability seriously is its budget.

A budget establishes economic and fiscal incentives, as we all know, and also the disincentives, including forms of taxes within which farmers, consumers and business make their decisions. A budget is the most important environmental policy statement because it determines how the nation's environment will be degraded or enhanced, how its stock of ecological capital will be increased or reduced. Actually the budget should be regarded as an environmental statement.

It was with these considerations in mind, with a clear intent of keeping an election promise, with a commitment to the need to shift to sustainability that in May of this year the committee on the environment and sustainable development recommended to the government the creation of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. This individual would report to Parliament. He would report on progress made in the shift from unsustainable to sustainable policies, on programs, on budgets. We did this drawing from chapter IV of the election campaign red book. We were motivated at the same time by the conclusions of the earth summit in Rio, namely the understanding and belief that Canada must move toward a sustainable development agenda for the 21st century.

The minister and his department are off to a good start by making sustainable development the main goal of this new department in clause 5. The minister is saying that economic development is dependent and goes hand in hand with ecological capital; that the depletion of one leads to the weakening and depletion of the other.

The wording in this bill is a milestone toward establishing in law the interdependence between two values of tremendous importance to humanity. Already the recognition of sustainable development has clearly emerged in the policies of the minister of fisheries through the conservation he has introduced. This was somehow imposed on us by circumstances that have developed over the last 20 years.

Another positive development on this road toward sustainable development is the appointment in early July of a task force to study the baseline expenditures of government that may be in conflict with sustainability and environmental protection. This task force will report to the Minister of Finance next November and is keeping a promise made in the campaign red book.

Another positive development came last Thursday when both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of the Environment announced a strategy for the Canadian environmental industry. It is the realization at the political level, the highest level, that there is an enormous potential, enormous scope for the development of a new industry that draws its strength from the realization that we are entering a new phase in growth, a new phase in development and the linking of the two concepts of the economy and the environment being integrated in a rational manner.

Yet to come are the changes in other departments. We still have a long way to go but the beginning is good and promising. I want to applaud the minister for his initiative.

[Lead, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that lead is dangerous to human health because it is a poisonous substance. We have made some progress by eliminating lead from gasoline and paints but many other uses of lead continue, thus causing a threat to human health.

In Canada lead is spread into the environment when a hunter shoots or an angler loses a fishing weight. When ingested by wildlife, lead is the cause of a slow and agonizing death. In the United States the use of lead shot for waterfowl was banned in 1991. In Denmark and in the Netherlands the government banned lead in shots for all game and fishing weights.

In Canada we have a long way to go in ensuring that lead does not enter the environment as in the case of imported children's crayons which will be the subject of another intervention soon.

[The Environment, June 17th, 1994]

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

There are disturbing reports in connection with the trade agreement being negotiated between the federal government and the provinces to the effect that plans for cutting interprovincial trade barriers will create environmental and social harm.

Can the minister assure this House that the environment is being taken fully into account in these negotiations and that the end result will be a trade agreement in which environmental, social and trade goals will have been integrated?

[Lead Shot And Fishing Weights, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, lead shot, gun ammunition made mostly from lead, is widely used in Canada for small game hunting. When birds and animals eat lead shot, it dissolves in their stomachs and slowly but surely kills them. The same can be said about lead fishing weights. Loons, eagles, herons and cormorants are among the birds affected by these toxic products.

There are good alternatives. Steel shot has been developed as a practical, effective, economic and non-toxic substitute.

In Denmark and Holland, lead is banned from all products, including gunshot and fishing weights. Lead shot is banned in the United States but Canada does not have similar legislation.

I urge the government to adopt a policy whereby lead shot and fishing weights made of lead are not to be used or made in Canada.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the debate today starts from the premise that the health condition of air, water, soil and atmosphere as we all agree is an indispensable precondition for a sustained economy and a healthy nation. The

question that arises is whether federal policies are helping in this respect and whether our values in society do so.

Today's debate on this environmental protection act is intended to come to grips with this question and to lay the foundation for our work in the months ahead.

The hon. member for Frontenac referred to the blue planet which we share. He said that we are all in the same boat, and I fully agree with him. However, I wonder how he can, in the same breath, allude to federal intrusions and accuse Ottawa of interfering in provincial affairs. When it comes to the environment, we cannot stoop to politicking.

I also want to say that I really appreciated the comments made by the hon. member for Terrebonne, as well as the feelings he expressed. I want to thank him for his co-operation and his ideas in committee.

I would also congratulate the member for Comox-Alberni for his helpful and constructive analysis of the legislation and for his concluding remarks which will certainly guide us in our deliberations in committee.

As to the act, if we are to put our economic activities on the right track so as not to damage health, natural resources and our long term economic prospects, I suggest that we must make this legislation work for the benefit of Canadians.

There are a number of points which must be noted with regard to this legislation. First, that it allow the ministers of the environment and health and welfare broad powers to gather detailed information about toxic substances from manufacturers, importers, transporters, distributors and users.

Second, this legislation requires the compilation of a priority substance list of suspect toxins for which assessment priority must be given and assessment reports prepared with intent of control by national regulation.

Third, if the government adds the names of toxic substances to the list then the government has broad regulatory powers to control all aspects including manufacturing, importing, exporting, packaging, labelling, transportation and storage. Persons who fail to give the required information or to comply with this regulation are liable to conviction of up to a $1 million fine or up to three years in prison and or both.

Fourth, a limitation in the legislation is the broad ministerial discretion to name substances to the priority list and to recommend regulatory action. There are an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 chemicals manufactured or imported into Canada. What constitutes a manageable number of chemicals for assessment priority is in itself a big challenge.

Fifth, where a substance has been on the priority substance list for five years and not yet assessed, any person may request a board of review but the resultant report would be recommendatory only. Only 44 substances have been listed over the past six years under the appropriate schedule of this act and subject to very limited regulations.

In March a number of organizations filed notices of objections because of 44 substances assessed under the priority substance list. Eleven were deemed neither toxic nor non-toxic because of the lack of data. These organizations argue that this unproven status violates section 14 of the act which states that within five years all substances on the priority substance list must be assessed and that the ministers have not fulfilled their statutory duty. These organizations can expect a board of review to investigate these 11 specific cases.

Then there is the international joint commission concerning the Great Lakes. It recommends: one, the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes, including the use of chlorine and chlorine containing compounds as chemical feed stocks in industry; two, the elimination of other chlorine uses or at least their reduction and, three, a shift in the onus of proof. Instead of government or the public having to prove that a product is dangerous, why not have the manufacturers prove that the product or substance is not harmful? In addition the commission is urging industry to re-evaluate both the material and processes it uses.

At this stage the precautionary principle comes to mind as adopted in Rio 1992 in the declaration which reads: "When there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The question is: Should this principle be included in the environment protection legislation?

There are in this legislation a number of hurdles to speedy action. Before regulations for toxic substances are imposed by cabinet a federal-provincial advisory committee must have an opportunity to tender its advice. If the Minister of the Environment and a provincial government agree that the province and the federal government regulations for a toxic substance are equivalent and both governments have similar investigative provisions, cabinet may declare that the federal regulations are non-applicable in that province. The application of this concept of equivalency continues to be controversial.

No wonder, I repeat no wonder, that as of today over the last six years not one such agreement has been entered into. A number of reasons account for the delay in implementation and provincial reticence among them to admit to any federal authority coupled with an overriding concern with a capacity for

control through the powers flowing from the constitutional concepts and precepts of peace, order and good government.

Next is the international scene. Where there is a reason to believe that an air contaminant in Canada is creating pollution in another country or violating an international agreement, the Minister of the Environment can recommend prohibitions or controls by way of regulations. However except for federal works or undertakings the minister is not allowed to make a recommendation unless consultations occur with the province where pollution is occurring as to whether regulatory steps may be taken under provincial laws.

The minister must endeavour to bring about provincial prevention or control if possible. Any federal regulation passed to control international air pollution may be made inapplicable to a province where equivalent provisions and investigative provisions and procedures are in place.

Mr. Speaker, this is quite a jungle to walk your way through, you will admit.

To conclude, this legislation of course is part of a broader picture. The parliamentary secretary has just given us a terrific framework against which we ought to approach this legislation. It is just one instrument in which we placed a lot of faith when producing it in 1987 and 1988.

Today we have to ask ourselves some tough questions, whether it can work, whether the idea of equivalency can be made to work, whether in the experience gathered so far it is sufficient to enable us and the legislators of today to conclude that CEPA can be improved by way of amendments or whether we need to start thinking of an alternative piece of legislation that would achieve the goal of environmental sustainability but through different means.

We are all aware of the significance of the assignment that the government has given to the committee. I am sure that the collective wisdom of all members of all parties in this House will help us to come back eventually with a report that will be for the benefit of Canadians from coast to coast.

[Committees Of The House, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regarding Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Canada Wildlife Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

[Oceans Day, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today, Oceans Day, we celebrate our oceans, the source of life on our planet. First declared in Rio, Oceans Day inspires and challenges us to become caretakers of our ocean environment.

Oceans supply the world's people with more animal protein than any other source. The sea has given us anti-leukemia drugs from sea sponges, bone graft materials from coral, and diagnostic chemicals from red algae. The ocean is the economic lifeline for coastal communities and fish workers by the millions.

For this reason we must keep in mind that human activities have a direct impact on coastal waters. For example, activities which take place inland account for nearly 80 per cent of marine pollution. Inshore dams can cause declining coastal fisheries. Oil spills from ships are to be prevented.

For all these reasons we need to protect and appreciate our oceans.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

This report concerns Bill C-23, an act to implement a convention for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and the United States.