Charles Caccia

[Environment, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Environment Week, I would like to report that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development recommends the appointment of a commissioner who would help to ensure that the federal government pursues policies and programs that are environmentally sustainable. What does all that mean?

It means the commissioner would evaluate and review federal policies, laws, regulations and programs and identify those which encourage and those which impede Canada's shift to environmentally sustainable development. The commissioner would report to Parliament. The commissioner would help in the shift toward sustainable development and would also comment on whether Canada's policies meet international commitments.

The members of this committee, most of them at least, urge the government to act quickly in the implementation of the recommendations contained in this report.

[Law Of The Sea, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, straddling the 200 nautical mile limit there is a fish stock which is of great importance to the existence and well-being of many coastal communities in Atlantic Canada.

Designed to avoid crisis in the fisheries, the law of the sea affirms the responsibility of all nations to co-operate in conserving and managing fish in the high seas. It is in the interests of Canadians that the Government of Canada ratify the law of the sea convention.

Canada should join the other 60 nations in the sustainable management of fish and bring destructive overfishing to an end. I call on the Government of Canada to ratify the law of the sea in 1994.

[Committees Of The House, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and indeed my pleasure to present today in conformity with Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons to table the first report of the committee of the environment and sustainable development.

In doing so, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the government for this most interesting assignment; the members of the committee for their work, advice, input and very thoughtful support; the clerk, researchers and support staff for their dedication, advice, guidance and the benefit of their experience.

I would also in a particular way like to thank all the witnesses and those who in large numbers advocated the thrust of this report, making most valuable recommendations on how the proposed commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is to operate.

We have looked at the future well beyond the next election. We have produced a report which, if adopted, would serve Canada well into the next century. What we are proposing, if adopted, would take Canada to the forefront in the global community both in anticipating and preventing depletions in our ecological and natural resource capital and in integrating economic with environmental goals so that once and for all we get out of the dangerous balancing act we find ourselves in as a society.

In adopting the committee's recommendations, the Government of Canada will be giving substance to its commitment to an environmentally sustainable future and will assume its rightful place as a leader in the world community.

[Pulp And Paper, May 10th, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of developing regulations and a program to replace dioxin producing bleaching processes in pulp and paper mills in Canada and at the same time launching immediately a campaign to educate the public about the advantages offered by non-bleached paper products.

Mr. Speaker, the motion has two purposes. One is to gently but firmly remind the government with respect to pulp and paper companies and the activities of the pulp and paper industry that there is a pollution problem which needs to be addressed. Second, it is desirable to launch a program of advocacy with Canadians to see whether there is acceptance among the users of paper of all kinds, from writing paper, to pads, to toilet paper, that it is not bleached and therefore not subjected to rough chemical treatments.

Obviously this question could be considerably resolved if the purchasing trends of consumers were to change and shift from bleached to non-bleached products. It is a question that every consumer asks when walking by shelves in our supermarkets.

The background to the motion is simple. We have a very important pulp and paper industry. It is a major contributor to Canada's economy. It helps considerably to maintain a positive trade balance. At the same time, however, the industry is the largest industrial user of water in Canada and it is a major source of pollution.

It is estimated that pulp and paper mills in Canada are responsible for roughly 50 per cent of all waste dumped into the nation's waters and account for approximately 5 per cent to 6 per cent of the common air contaminants from known industrial sources.

Because of the livelihood of many families, because of the economic importance of the industry, because of the interests of shareholders in this industry, and because of the growing desire to behave as good environmental citizens on the part of Canadians, I am sure it is in our long term interest to develop measures that will improve the image of the industry at home and abroad and therefore secure the livelihood of the families dependent on the industry.

We are informed by the Chlorine Institute of North America that pulp and paper bleaching accounts for 14 per cent of chlorine use in North America. The use of chlorine and its compounds as bleaching agents results in the discharge of some very damaging and poisonous substances. By that I mean dioxins, furans, chloroform and other toxic materials.

The problem with chlorine is that it has an impact on the environment and human health. We know that chlorine is useful as a disinfectant. It is useful in many industrial activities. There is no doubt about that. There are also many negative effects. When chlorine is used in pulp and paper manufacturing processes the byproducts include such toxic substances such as dioxins, furans and PCBs. These elements are known to be persistent in the environment. They have found their way into the food chain and human tissue. They have been the subject of a number of recommendations in recent years by the International Joint Commission.

A number of health problems are associated with organochlorines and mounting evidence indicates that some organochlorines can cause not only cancer but reproductive dysfunctions, endocrine disruptions, developmental impairments and immunological effects.

At the present time we must say in assessing the situation that in recent times there has been a reduction in the use of chlorine in pulp and paper by the industry due mostly to modernization of the industry. We welcome that. Many plants are shifting away from the use of elemental chlorine or chlorine gas to the use of chlorine dioxide which results in a sharp decrease in the production of organochlorines and a reduction in the amount of dioxins associated with bleaching. However chlorine dioxide discharges contain large amounts of chlorate which is a very powerful herbicide.

We must raise the question as to whether this change or this shift is good enough. That question is followed by another one: Are there alternatives? Alternatives do exist. Also there is resistance to these alternatives. There is ozone bleaching, hydrogen peroxide and oxygen pre-bleaching.

These various approaches are now the objects of examination at the research level, but they would be extremely desirable as alternative approaches. They are a bit more expensive than chlorine and chlorine dioxide. They provide not only cleaner alternatives but involve less cost in the long run. The basic concept that has to be advanced in this debate is that it is going to be less costly in the long run if this is seen as an issue that will affect more than just one generation.

The present regulatory situation raises a question as to whether it is good enough. Regulations for pulp and paper were passed in May 1992 and were intended primarily to control conventional pollutants from mills. No assessment of the potential harm to human health by effluents from pulp and paper has been conducted because it is not required under the Fisheries Act.

The regulations control only two members of the family of chlorinated dioxins and furans. There are many family members. These are highly toxic because when they enter the environment in quantities they have immediate and long term harmful effects and constitute a danger to human health.

In his report in 1993 the auditor general informed Canadians that the Department of the Environment had not explained why it had not regulated dioxins and furans according to total toxicity. One province has done so. That is the province of Quebec. Maybe others have followed suit.

These regulations do not address directly the pulp and paper sludge or air emissions because they are not under the scope of the fisheries act. Nor do the conventional pollution regulations deal with effects on the environment in general or on human health. Further the environmental effects monitoring program, which is to be the main method of assessing the effectiveness of regulations, does not assess the effects on the environment and human health for the same reasons.

Next, the auditor general pointed out that the implementation of some of the new regulations had actually afforded mills that met regulatory requirements with some protection by allowing discharge of prescribed amounts under specific conditions. This is a very tricky situation.

The auditor general reported that incomplete information was provided on the effectiveness and cost of pulp and paper regulations. Apparently, while the federal regulations authorize the government to require mills to provide data on dioxins and furans in intermediate flows and in pulp and paper sludge at the mill, not much has happened.

The auditor general also pointed out that of 97 mills not in compliance at the end of December 1992, 91 mills were granted permission to continue polluting at preregulation levels until the end of 1993. All companies that tabled plans by the end of 1993 have been given an extension to the end of 1995.

The auditor general stated in his report that if these extensions were granted the mid-term effectiveness of the regulations would be quite questionable. In other words, why have regulations if extension after extension is granted? It is my understanding that 26 mills were granted extension until January 1994 to the dioxin and furans regulations.

We are dealing with a serious situation. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary or other members will address it in their interventions later.

In conclusion, one has to raise a basic, elementary question: Does paper need to be white? Is it really that important? In some countries paper of different colours is used. I do not want to go into shades of brown or grey, but the preoccupation or almost obsession with chlorine white does not exist in many other cultures. We seem to adhere to that very firmly, I suppose because the appearance is so attractive. Does it really have to be that way once we connect in our way of thinking to the fact that the use of chlorine which is necessary to have white paper is harmful to the environment in the long term and affects the ecosystem? That also leaves much to be desired because it can also have negative impacts on human health.

Do we need bleaching? Is it necessary to have white paper from toilet paper to writing paper? What is needed to do that? I suggest that if the appearance of our paper is not that important perhaps we could achieve a change in attitude and in consumer demand at the purchasing level of the individual consumer by a program of advocacy.

I would suggest that ways must be found to convey to the public the benefits of non-bleached paper. We need comprehensive education, if you like. We need to inform the public of the merits of unbleached paper.

Industry perhaps argues that there is no demand for chlorine free paper and it may be right. Yet through education and advocacy about the desirability of using non-bleached paper we might witness a change in demand in a very short time.

I am reminded in that respect and you are also, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, to what happened in the 1970s when we did switch from phosphate detergents to non-phosphate detergents when the public became seriously preoccupied with eutrophication both in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie in particular.

Therefore, an education campaign would perhaps rely on groups with experience in public education and grassroots awareness building so as to provide a vehicle to convey this message. There are many people I am sure who could be instrumental in an effective campaign Environment Canada could enlist their help. It seems to me that it is the responsibility of Environment Canada to initiate this process as it has done so successfully with other public advocacy programs.

To conclude, there is the government procurement process. Here the government could set the tone and the pace by determining what it buys when it comes to paper. If the Government of Canada were to switch from bleached to non-bleached procurements and buy the non-bleached paper it would make an enormous difference. We know the quantities that are being ordered. All the paper products used by government depart-

ments if non-bleached could become a very important trigger and start a new trend in favour of products that are environmentally friendly, namely non-bleached recycled paper products.

It seems to me therefore that it is reasonable to raise this matter in the House of Commons at this point to assess the situation we are in at the present time. We are perhaps at the mid point between the very unsatisfactory situation in the 1980s. We are certainly moving the right direction but we have to accelerate that process. We have to ensure that the industry does not become the object of trade retaliation abroad initiated by environmental movements as we have seen in other industrial sectors.

Maybe rather than being motivated by negative reasons we should be motivated by positive ones, namely by the desire of not only protecting the environment through our industrial activities but also to practice the concept of sustainable development which is a key chapter in the red book entitled "Creating Opportunities". Sustainable development means that we are heading for times in which we will need to integrate environmental with economic decisions.

Evidently the pulp and paper industry cannot exempt itself from this emerging trend. It is a desirable one because it has, as I mentioned, positive repercussions not only in terms of environmental protection but also on human health and it is therefore important that we bring all these concepts together on the floor of the House of Commons for further deliberation and hopefully for the advancement of the cause of a well managed and well protected environment with the long term interests of the economy in mind.

[Rwanda, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as we meet here today the massacre in Rwanda continues while waves of people cross the border into Tanzania's refugee camps.

It is impossible for the international community to remain unmoved at the sight of such human tragedy in Rwanda. The International Red Cross has just asked for United Nations intervention to secure and protect sources of water for the refugees. At the same time the Security Council needs to support the Secretary-General and provide the troops necessary to protect innocent civilians.

The Government of Canada could play a leading role in coming to the rescue of so many, relieving their misery and preventing further human suffering.

[Canada Wildlife Act, May 4th, 1994]

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, Canada is in many respects the envy of the world, particularly when it comes to the diversity of its ecosystems and wildlife and the geography that makes such richness possible.

However recent studies have revealed that we have 11 extirpated species under the general heading of mammal, bird, reptile, fish and plant. We have nine extinct ones under the general heading of mammal, bird and fish species. Under the general heading of at risk species we have 258 mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and plants. This list is by no means exhaustive.

The questions we have to ask ourselves in this important debate are: Why are so many species at risk? How come we already have so many extinct and so many extirpated species? Is it due to habitat destruction caused by humans? Is it due to thoughtless trafficking in animals because of greed?

It seems habitat destruction and trafficking are the two major reasons. Whatever the combination of causes, it underlies the need to increase our efforts in protecting wildlife and ensuring that the destruction of wildlife and wildlife habitat destruction do not occur.

The act is a good measure. It is a good step in the right direction. As others have already indicated it is very timely and badly needed. It allows, for instance, the minister to purchase, acquire or lease lands for the purpose of research, conservation and interpretation in respect of migratory birds and-this is the interesting angle-in the national interest and with the support of provinces other species including endangered species. So

there is a broadening of a very important concept in relation to the acquisition of land.

Presently in Canada there are 45 national wildlife areas encompassing roughly 300,000 hectares, as the member for Terrebonne already indicated in his intervention. The provinces have indicated to the federal government that the existing penalties are no longer appropriate and that administrative and enforcement procedures need to be streamlined. Because of this, a number of changes have been proposed.

As the member for Comox-Alberni has already indicated, the definition is no longer limited to any non-domestic animal but includes wild organisms, animal, plant or other organisms and their habitat. The broadening of the definition encourages an ecosystem approach to conservation and brings the act far beyond the traditional approach for protection which in the past has been limited to just the higher order of animals.

Much has been said by those who spoke before me on the establishment of protected marine areas. I also welcome these, because this step has potential positive implications for areas within the 200 nautical mile limit and provides authority for the protection of marine animals and mammals.

Until now the marine ecosystem and its diversity has remained largely unprotected from the perspective of habitat protection and the application of the act has been limited just to the 12 mile limit. Therefore it has become critical that the wildlife habitat, including breeding and feeding grounds for whales and areas of significant concentration of seabirds be extended beyond the 12 mile limit. This is a very good development.

I was very interested in the comments made by the member for Comox-Alberni on enforcement. One often wonders about the effectiveness of fines and whether the right level is achieved. Certainly there is no doubt that what is being proposed in the bill is an improvement. Until this bill is passed, enforcement agencies in the field are reluctant, we are told, to charge offenders because of inappropriate penalties and the time required to follow up in court proceedings.

Hopefully the amendments will allow the wildlife officers to have broader authority in inspecting wildlife specimens, including the provisions regarding inspection, search, seizure, custody and so on. The minister will also have powers to appoint persons or a group of persons to be employed by the government as enforcement officers.

While the amendments to increase penalties are welcome and desirable, they will mean very little if the necessary resources are not allocated to enforcement. At the present time the federal jurisdiction has only 30 enforcement positions, all of which are not filled. As the member probably knows, coming from Alberta, a lot of criticism has been directed through the federal government at the fact that enforcement powers have been declining, as has the strength of the Canadian Wildlife Service.

The parliamentary secretary waxed eloquently at the beginning of his speech, stating: "Canadians care deeply about wildlife". He is right. The question is this: Can fewer than 30 enforcement officers do the job? All they can do is answer telephone inquiries but not much more. Therefore this aspect of implementation and enforcement requires attention.

Fines have been increased. I will not go into the details of what is being proposed but I have to ask this. What is the value of a polar bear, what is the value of a spotted owl, what is the value of a bald eagle once the species has entered the endangered category? The monetary value expressed through the fine is not adequate to express the damage caused to the totality of our culture when an endangered species is removed by one number.

I am a bit puzzled about the effectiveness of the fines proposed, whether they go far enough in becoming really preventive. There is definitely an improvement in the proposed amendments to section 13 which make a person liable for a separate offence on each day on which an offence is committed. That is good. It will allow a court to multiply fines by the number of specimens in the possession of the offender. The member for Comox-Alberni made reference to possession of wildlife that ought to be taken into account when we go through this bill clause by clause.

Section 13 allows the court to impose additional fines if the court deems that the person has made earnings from the offence. Although this will be difficult to prove it is a good step in the right direction.

Clause 15 of the bill among other things adds a new section for special orders of the court which allow the court to order those convicted to remedy the harm, pay for remediation of all activity that could lead to repeat offences, perform community services and the like. That is highly commendable.

Now we come to what is probably the heart of the bill. Section 8 deals with endangered species. Here the minister has been given permissive powers, in co-operation with one or more provincial governments, to take measures as the minister deems necessary for the protection of any species of wildlife in danger of extinction.

This terminology has good potential, but is it strong enough? Does this section provide adequate protection or do we need new legislation for the specific protection of endangered species? This is the question that ought to be addressed. I am sure it will be addressed in committee. If we do not come to grips with the question of endangered species and their protection, future generations of Canadians will not be able to enjoy them.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature in January of this year in Argentina adopted an interesting resolution which in effect repaired a protocol under the convention on biological diversity which deals with diversity in the forest. It is a good step in the right direction.

The question is this: How does Canada rank in the international sphere? Are we doing enough to protect species that cross borders?

What about the Porcupine caribou in northern Alberta and in Yukon territory? That herd resides and moves between Yukon and Alaska. While the Canadian land is designated as a wildlife area, one section of the calving region is in the United States. This land is described as 1002 lands and is very important because it is the calving ground of the herd and is in danger of being destroyed because of oil exploration.

Therefore, should oil exploration be permitted on the north slope, which is this 1002 land in Alaska, or should it be, as I would of course argue in favour, banned for the protection in the centuries ahead of these particular herds which move across the border? This is a cross-border issue. We must, I submit, ensure that species and populations such as the Porcupine caribou herd are not threatened through exploration and exploitation of natural resources. Since this is an international matter I would urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to raise it at the appropriate time in Washington.

It seems to me as we look at this bill and the overall situation in the nineties that we need international agreements on the preservation and protection of water and land wildlife. We are losing species compared to the richness of 50 or 100 years ago. In other words, there is a constant attrition and diminution in the richness of species that can be documented.

If future generations are to have any wildlife to enjoy, then we need to do much more for the species in danger of extinction and for the cross-border species in particular.

I will conclude with a thought that I am sure troubles all of us. It is more than that, it is a reflection. I wonder whether fines, enforcement, laws and regulations can do the job. It seems to me that they can only go so far.

What is needed as a complementary measure to Bill C-24 is an intensive education program. We have to have education aimed at all ages, an education aimed at all groups and promoted at all levels. Every Canadian should know what is endangered in our ecosystem, either on land or in the water, whether it is a plant, an insect, a mammal, you name it.

Every Canadian through this educational effort should be mobilized to protect wildlife. Every Canadian should be asked to help in the protection of endangered species because in a democracy the most effective instrument is education.

[Rwanda, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you know it is increasingly difficult to remain indifferent to the situation in Rwanda. Yesterday the UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, asked the Security Council to reconsider its decision to reduce UN forces in Rwanda.

My question which follows that of the hon. member for Rosedale and other interested members in this House is this: Is the minister willing to support the Secretary-General, take the lead of the Security Council and ensure an adequate world response to this immense tragedy?

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me congratulate the parliamentary secretary, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, for his opening remarks and for having set the tone for this debate and also for having ensured that there will be a thorough examination at the committee level so as to provide for consultation with interested Canadians.

Also I would like to congratulate the member for Terrebonne and the member for Kootenay East for having put forward such interesting observations that will certainly add to the quality of the examination and also because they give life to what otherwise would seem a rather stultified and bureaucratic piece of legislation. It is not stultified. It is not a dull and uninteresting piece of legislation.

On the contrary, I would argue that this is a very important piece of legislation being introduced by this new government today in the House mainly for three reasons. One, it is important because the movement of migratory birds has enormous significance for our farmers, for the role that birds play in the ecological balance and in maintaining a control of insects in the open agricultural environment. That role of course is well known but it is never underlined and highlighted enough.

Second, to the urban dwellers the arrival and departure of migratory birds and their staying in Canada during the good season is a source of enormous pleasure. That pleasure is not limited to bird watchers. It is a well known shared interest that Canadians have for the presence of this magnificent species.

Third, the fact that our literature and our heritage are based on the presence of migratory birds is witnessed alone by the fact that we have found it over the decades desirable to produce banknotes and coins reproducing some of the better known migratory birds in Canada.

For all these reasons it is quite safe to assume that deep down in the subconscious of the Canadian psyche there is a tremendous attachment to wildlife and therefore the migration of birds means more than just what that poor term conveys. It is an attitude toward nature. It is an attitude toward wildlife and essential pleasure is derived from it which cannot be easily described with plain words as I am attempting to do today.

For these three reasons I would say we are debating here in this House a piece of legislation that is significant for us and can have very significant repercussions for future generations of Canadians as other speakers have already highlighted, in particular the members for Terrebonne and Kootenay East.

This bill will allow for the creation of sanctuaries. It will ensure the management of areas important for the protection of migratory birds. It is important to note that at the present time we have in Canada some 101 bird sanctuaries protecting roughly 11 million hectares which are covered for that purpose.

If we look at the new act it is intended to broaden the definition of migratory birds. This is important because it will include sperm, embryos and tissue cultures. This is intended as a protective measure against development in biotechnology which may take place in future years. It is a very good clause that is proactive and of particular value.

Under this bill regulatory authorities will be established. One can only say that on the whole this bill is most laudable and very well prepared.

The contentious parts, however, that could be discussed and raised today relate, as is usually the case with these kind of bills, to fines and enforcement. Very briefly, I would like to draw attention to the fines which under the present legislation, before this bill comes into force, are a mere $10 to a maximum of $300. They are only levied upon summary conviction. Evidently there is here a vacuum that must be filled and we must say that this legislation is long overdue.

In the proposed bill the maximum fine will be $5,000 for summary conviction offences and up to $25,000 for indictable offences.

The question is are these fines really sufficient? I am sure there are a variety of views on this in reply to this question. In other words, is $5,000 adequate to deter someone from harming, killing or possessing and illegally trading protected species?

From the comments made by the member for Terrebonne I would be inclined to conclude that this fine is not enough, that the legislators should give the judge sufficiently broad range of fines and let the judge decide how strong the fine should be. However, the penalty should be as strong as it can conceivably be because it will also serve a purpose not just this year and next year but probably 10 or 20 years from now when this legislation is likely to be amended, but we do not know for sure. Therefore

the question of fines is one that raises a number of interesting questions.

The same can be said about enforcement. Enforcement officers will be appointed under this legislation. Their powers will be more consistent with other federal and provincial conservation legislation. Subsection 13 addresses this particular aspect of enforcement.

The question is whether a person who commits or continues to commit an offence for more than one day should be penalized or whether a limitation of one day is one that ought not to be deleted so that there is no reduction in the offence that is contemplated by the judge.

I would be inclined to think the enforcement section needs a good examination by the committee to make it stronger. It is true that the amendments will become strong deterrents to those who would traffic in wildlife. There is no doubt that they read very well. We have to make sure that there is enough strength in the Canadian Wildlife Service and in the provincial affiliated departments to carry out what is in the legislation.

Therefore I must bring to members' attention a statement made recently by the Animal Alliance of Canada in which a recommendation is made to stop the continued erosion of the numbers of wildlife enforcement officers, that the current vacancies of five enforcement people be filled and the remainder of 29 person-years be completed to bring the enforcement officers to a level that was promised in 1991, which is just above 30.

One must wonder whether in a country as large as Canada with such a large federal jurisdiction it is realistic to expect an enforcement of this important legislation with only 30 enforcement officers or thereabouts. Evidently the answer is no and evidently we will have to address this very important question.

Resources must be allocated to enforcement. These 30 or so positions must be increased, otherwise Canada is running the risk of not being able to meet its obligations under this legislation, under the Cites legislation as well as the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. That is quite a lengthy title for that matter.

There are a number of questions that ought to be put on record on second reading. I would simply reduce them to the following.

Is there sufficient power provided by this bill so that the present minister and future ministers can undertake all the necessary action to ensure the protection of migratory birds?

Is the scope of this convention broad enough now that Canada has entered into NAFTA? Should initiatives not be launched at the political level as well as at the technical level to broaden the scope of the Migratory Convention Act so as to include Mexico and both Central and South America since as well we all know the movement of birds does not respect boundaries?

This convention is binding only on North America. If the scope of the convention is not broadened, a number of species could be in danger in the years ahead.

Many of our Canadian species do straddle two continents. We have to understand that all wildlife is really world wildlife, not just limited to Canada. Our ability to enjoy the presence of migratory birds in Canada depends also on the ability of protecting the species in those regions of the world where they spend their winter.

Therefore, the Canadian songbirds as we know and appreciate them depend on the rainforests of Central and South America. This is a political message that we have to carry to the international fora to ensure that this convention is broadened to its largest possible scope. Otherwise Canada will have a very limited chance to improve the survival of the species in the decades ahead.

We are debating today not just what would be the reality of the nineties but most likely the reality of the first half of the next century since this kind of bill does not reach the floor of the House of Commons that frequently.

In conclusion I would say that the changes proposed to the act are essential. They are very desirable. They are timely. We must work together to ensure there is a co-ordinated effort to achieve the protection of migratory birds.

We must ensure that the fines are a very strong deterrent. We must do our best to find ways to ensure the enforcement of the proposed act is carried out in every area of the federal jurisdiction at least. I suppose there could be excellent co-operation between provincial and federal services. We must ensure that the powers to create new sanctuaries are implemented and that the existing sanctuaries continue to be protected.

Finally, as I just mentioned and before I sit down, I would really make a plea to the Minister of the Environment to consider taking an initiative personally to ensure the scope of the convention is enlarged to include all the Americas and to provide the necessary protection in decades ahead.

[Ozone Layer, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the latest figures from Environment Canada on the ozone layer are disturbing. Measurements of the atmosphere above Toronto shows the ozone layer was 7 per cent to 9 per cent thinner in April than it should be. Approximately the same situation was reported for Montreal and Vancouver. The ozone layer filters ultraviolet rays from the sun, as we know. These rays can cause skin cancer, cataracts and possibly immune system damage.

The layer has been eroded by chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons used in air conditioners, refrigerators and some electronic and plastic industries. With 3 per cent less ozone that normal forecasted for this coming summer, it is important that Canadians, particularly children and young ones, protect their skin and eyes from harmful ultraviolet sun rays.

The message therefore is clear: Protect your health by protecting yourself from the sun.

[Canadian Heritage River System, April 25th, 1994]

In Canada we have beautiful rivers which are the envy of the whole world. Among them are the Nahanni, the Alsek, the Kicking Horse, the Athabasca, the Churchill, the Mattawa, the Grand, the Jacques Cartier, the St. Croix, the Shelburne and the Main.

In January 1984 in order to protect these rivers and to retain their beauty for future generations, the Canadian heritage river system was formed under the auspices of Parks Canada. This is a national system of protected rivers from sea to sea to sea. It consists of 27 rivers totalling almost 6,000 kilometres. This number will hopefully grow in coming years.

The heritage river program deserves support. Canadians can generate it by writing to Parks Canada and to their federal elected representatives suggesting the names of additional rivers that require protection through this imaginative and unique initiative aimed at enriching our heritage.