Charles Caccia

[The Environment, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is Earth Week which culminates in Earth Day on April 22. This is a time to celebrate planet Earth, its ecosystems and the life forms that inhabit it.

While we celebrate we should also think of ways to prevent pollution and manage natural resources so that our children and grandchildren will inherit a healthy planet and environmentally sustainable resources. We are often reminded that all things are interconnected and in the long term what we do to the soil, water and air we do to ourselves.

The United Nations conference on environment and development made this point clear and produced agenda 21, a document for decision makers to keep in mind not just this week but all year round. Our actions must be guided by the knowledge that we only have one planet on which to live. Therefore every day is Earth Day.

[Law Of The Sea, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of unemployed workers in the fishing industry and the economy of Canada it is urgent that the Government of Canada ratify the Law of the Sea convention. This treaty would serve Canada's interests by enhancing Canadian sovereignty over coastal waters and contributing to a stable and more peaceful legal order for the oceans.

It specifically protects certain fish stocks and enshrines in international law principles contained in the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. This treaty would offer a legal framework that would eventually assist Canada's efforts to stop foreign overfishing.

Canada's long term interest is in ratifying and promoting the Law of the Sea convention if we are to bring back this industry at all. I therefore urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to ratify the Law of the Sea without delay.

[Biodiversity, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, biodiversity means a richness of life as it surrounds us in nature. We must preserve biodiversity because it is nature's protection against catastrophes. The loss of biodiversity has serious implications for life on earth.

We have been told that since the beginning of the century 75 per cent of crop diversity has been lost. This leaves us vulnerable. For example uniformity in corn crops could have resulted in disaster when a severe blight threatened corn crops in the 1970s. By maintaining biodiversity we also help sustain ourselves.

As a responsible society we in Canada must preserve our still rich biodiversity. From our forests and fields to our wetlands, lakeshores, parks and lawns our biodiversity is our most precious asset.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, back in February the Minister of the Environment stated in the House her intention to review the present situation and to propose within four to six months timetables and schedules for the phasing out of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes, particularly of organochlorines.

Chlorine is at the centre of a controversy because of its impacts on the environment and on human health. On one hand chlorine has been very useful but it is also has negative effects.

Today there are about 15,000 chlorinated compounds in use by industry. In addition, many byproducts are produced when chlorine is used in processes such as pulp and paper and vinyl manufacturing. These byproducts include such toxic persistent substances as dioxins, furans and PCBs.

Organochlorines are known to be persistent in the environment and to build up in the food chain.

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

The International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes has recently recommended first, the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes, including the use of chlorine and chlorine-containing compounds as chemical feedstocks in industry. Second, the elimination of other chlorine uses or at least their reduction and, third, a shift from government or the public having to prove the danger of a product to the chemical industry so that it would be the chemical industry that would have to prove the product or a substance is not harmful.

In addition, the International Joint Commission is urging industry to rethink its practices in order to eliminate the production of persistent toxic substances, a much better preventive approach than the reacting and curing approach we have at the present time.

Many scientists are saying that organo-chlorines are a problem from a public health point of view. While some organo-chlorines might be generally safe, they should earn their designation as safe through good, solid science and through a shift in the onus of proof.

For all these reasons, I urge the Minister of the Environment to announce a plan for the gradual elimination of industrial chlorine use as recommended by the International Joint Commission. Also, I urge the minister to set up a strategy and a timetable for examining the possibility of reducing or eliminating other uses of chlorine and other persistent toxic substances.

In conclusion, it seems to me that in 1994 the Minister of the Environment has the opportunity to act and to plan a transition as called for by the International Joint Commission which recommends the adoption of a virtual elimination strategy within two years. This action requires political will and commitment, of course. The Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister has the power to prove that this Liberal government is committed to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which as we all know commits the Government of Canada and that of the United States of America to a toxic free water body for the benefit of Canadians and Americans.

[United Nations Convention On Climate Change, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today, March 21, the United Nations Convention on Climate Change comes into effect.

This agreement among nations represents the first international step in support of the reduction of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide as we all know is produced when we burn natural gas, oil and coal.

Today we must remind the government and the Minister of Energy to act on the promise to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by the year 2005. Federal, provincial and municipal governments all have a role to play but the Government of Canada has to lead at the national and international levels.

The problem of climate change can only be resolved if every nation pulls its weight.

[International Water Day, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to thank the minister for her kind words and for the statement that she made earlier. I would like to thank also the colleagues who have spoken before me.

On behalf of the members of the committee, namely the member for York-Simcoe, the member for Simcoe North, the member for Lincoln, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, the member for Oxford, the member for Frontenac, the member for Terrebonne, the member for Kootenay East and the member for Comox-Alberni, I would like to assure the House that we are looking forward very much to completing this assignment.

We will put our efforts into completing it in the spirit that has been expressed in this House in recent minutes. We will certainly endeavour to report to the House within the time limitation indicated by the minister. We look forward to implementing this promise contained in the red book of the last election campaign.

We also look forward to the fact that in future Canada will have either an auditor general for the environment or a commissioner for the environment. We look forward very much to keeping other promises we made in the last campaign.

[International Water Day, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. With your permission I would like to seek consent of the House to make a brief statement as chair of the committee of the environment and sustainable development.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the budget proves that this government has rejected the economic theories of the Reform Party and that it has put most of its emphasis on its belief, and quite rightly so, that what we are facing today in our economy is a crisis of revenue. It is not a crisis of expenditure as the Reform Party would like Canadians to believe.

At the next election we will be able to demonstrate to those who voted for the Reform Party that they placed their confidence in the wrong party. Let me stress the fact that the crisis of revenue is going to be tackled by this government by stimulating the economy, by creating jobs and by bringing back confidence in the economic system of Canada which for many years has been the object of decreased confidence. This has resulted in the formation of an underground economy.

The budget places an emphasis on increasing revenue through a number of initiatives, not believing that our economic situation can be remedied through cuts alone. It is an encouraging and well received statement by Canadians at large.

The budget also contains a green strategy, so to speak. It is modest but it is timely. It is the first step but it promises others because the minister announced changes that will encourage companies to contribute to mine reclamation funds, commitments to improve the tax treatment of a certain type of tax conservation equipment and enhanced incentives for newer and cleaner technologies.

The Minister of Finance announced that the strategy for encouraging the growth of environmental technology and services will be revealed later this year. These announcements outline the fact that there is a willingness and a commitment to turn our budget making into a green colour as the years go by.

There are many items that are still to be considered in future budgets. One is the introduction of green taxes. Time does not permit me to go into detail. Let me only say that a graduated taxation system which would recognize the environmentally friendly role of certain products would be helpful and well received by Canadians.

Lower taxes, for instance, for products approved by the environment choice program would be a highly desirable step which has been adopted in other jurisdictions. In the United States, to give members another example, there is an annual vehicle registration fee that is geared to the weight of the vehicle. There is a recognition that the tax system should reward those who use vehicles that weigh less and are more fuel efficient.

There is a whole range of initiatives that could be taken and I hope will be taken under the general heading of green taxation.

It is interesting to note, when it comes to natural resources, a white paper produced by the European communities a few weeks ago. It states: "Market prices do not incorporate sufficiently the limited availability of natural resources and the environmental scarcities related to their consumption". The result is a systematic overuse of our national resources. Here again a graduated taxation on a resource demanding products and services would serve as an incentive and would be highly desirable.

Next the minister announced in the budget speech his commitment to create a task force to examine certain subsidies and taxes which are harmful to the environment. They are commonly called perverse subsidies. Although they are well intended, over time we have discovered they are damaging.

This task force has a terrific opportunity to examine existing and major federal subsidies, programs, expenditures and the like, including federal-provincial agreements from the perspective of development and growth that is sustainable environmentally speaking.

There will be an opportunity for the task force to examine, for instance, the budget of the Canadian International Development Agency and the budget of the energy department. The incentives that have been and are being provided in agriculture, in forestry, in fishery and in trade will be examined with the hope in mind or with the intent of ensuring long term sustainability through fiscal and other measures, including policies in the field of energy. Fossil fuel subsidies and programs will be at the core of the particular task force.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Will the minister tell the House how he intends to proceed in ensuring that the Downsview base in Toronto is owned by the public in perpetuity, enjoyed as an open space, an urban forest with recreational and educational facilities? This would provide enjoyment for Canadians interested in nature studies and urban dwellers seeking relaxation in a green environment.

Will these lands be designated to become our first national urban forest?

[The Environment, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once again we learn the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence continue to be seriously damaged by toxic substances we produce and consume as a society. The International Joint Commission reports that the quality of water continues to be in danger because of unacceptable levels of persistent toxic substances.

The commission urges Canadians and Americans to deal with these toxic substances. They are damaging the economy, human health, wildlife and all other forms of life.

The commission recommends that governments, businesses, communities, labour, educators and the media act together in order to stop the damage, restore the integrity of the ecosystem, and protect the health of millions of people whose well-being and economies depend upon these beautiful bodies of water.