Charles Caccia

[Health, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in her latest report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development notes that in 1994 the federal government committed to setting up a database on pesticide use and that it has still not done so.

Can the Minister of Health inform us as to when a pesticide sales database will be set up by Statistics Canada?

[Fisheries, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In British Columbia's Broughton Archipelago the wild salmon stocks have declined by 70% to 90% because of the harmful impacts of sea lice outbreaks from fish farms. The federal sea lice action plan has managed to reduce the lice infecting wild salmon. Wild salmon stocks have begun to replenish.

Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans willing to extend the sea lice action plan to next year to ensure the restoration of wild salmon stocks?

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, because of time limitation I will say simply, yes.

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair is very kind in his remarks and too generous in attributing to me a knowledge on clean coal technology, which I do not possess.

This firm has been with us for some time. A considerable amount of research was conducted in the 1980s, particularly in Nova Scotia, in order to keep our coal mines there open. I suppose there are processes available today that claim to achieve clean results.

I would imagine the thrust of the member's question would be better addressed to the Minister of Industry in order to establish whether, in the technology research program that he announced as part of his department some 18 months ago, a particular effort is being made toward achieving this particular activity in the field of energy.

There is no doubt that energy efficiency and energy innovation in particular will be needed to achieve our Kyoto goals but we should also keep in mind that the outcome will not depend just on the technological fix. The outcome will also depend on an enormous amount of discipline on the part of ourselves as consumers, an enormous amount of innovation in the field of energy conservation and an enormous amount of initiatives that are crying to heaven for attention.

We only have to consider the tremendous use of energy by supermarkets at the retail level which are consuming tremendous amounts of energy every day in a manner that is unconscionable at times. One only has to go to Europe to see the difference. The Europeans conserve their energy very carefully compared to the manner in which we use our energy on this side of the Atlantic.

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer the second question because it pertains to a provincial agency; I think Hydro-Québec received grants from the Quebec government for a number of years and, therefore, it did not need help from the federal government. The same is true for Ontario Hydro.

The first question from the member for Champlain is very interesting and well thought out because we should of course invest much more in renewable energies. I hope the next federal budget will place a greater emphasis on the measures initiated in the 2001 budget. They were small steps in that direction and we should redouble our efforts. Whatever has been done until now is not enough.

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, one has to note the enthusiastic and overwhelming support for Bill C-48 by that great philanthropic party, the Canadian Alliance. The official opposition is very much inclined to support the bill, as was shown yesterday in the vote at report stage.

That party is opposed to Kyoto. That party by and large is opposed to social security reform. That party is opposed to strong federalism. The fact that the official opposition supports the legislation is a source of some suspicion. We would not want to prejudge it just because the support of the official opposition is there, but there are three very good reasons to reject this legislation and I will outline them one by one.

Bill C-48 aims at reducing taxes for the oil and gas industry. This raises the question, is the industry in trouble and does it need some help? If it were the textile industry, the shoe industry, or some industry in difficulty across the country one would understand, but why apply this form of tax relief to an industry which is consistently posting large profits and is likely to post large profits in the decades ahead? That is the question.

This brings me to the heart of the first reason. The industry has free access to natural resources which are extracted from underground. It extracts a resource which belongs to the people of Canada. This resource also belongs to the next generation of Canadians, and hopefully to generations to come. The time limit available for the exploitation of this resource is not that long. In return for this free resource the industry pays taxes. Those taxes go into the system that permits governments to do the good things that they do for the public from pensions to airports to other services which keep this country together and functioning.

Bill C-48 would reduce the taxation rate from 28% to 21%. The present rate of 28% has been justified over the years as a form of payment by this industry to the Canadian public. The idea of reducing the taxation rate from 28% to 21% is a good reason why the bill should not be supported. The tax rate should not be reduced.

There is another reason and it can be spelled out in one very short word. That word is Kyoto. It is important to briefly explain Kyoto because it has now become a buzzword that implies so much.

Canada, by virtue of ratifying that accord last December by a vote here in the House, which was opposed by the official opposition but supported by all other parties, is now committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These are the gases produced when we burn fossil fuels, from petroleum to oil to gas and to coal. All the fossil fuels produce gases when burned.

Canada is committed to a reduction of 6% by the year 2012, which actually seems to be very little, based on our emissions in the year 1990. But because of the increase in our economic activity this needed reduction is not just 6%; it is estimated by our scientists that we need a reduction in the range of some 23% to 25%. It is a major undertaking, a major engagement, and not an easy one. Therefore, what follows is that if we pass any form of legislation in this House, we would want to pass legislation that facilitates, that makes easier, the achievement of the Kyoto goals.

Here instead, and this is the second reason for considering this bill not worthy of support, we are putting forward a measure that will make it more difficult to achieve the goals which the Government of Canada has set for itself by way of the ratification of the Kyoto accord last December, by way of a vote in this House of Commons.

The parliamentary secretary, when he spoke earlier on the bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance, made no reference to Kyoto and how the bill would affect the achievement of Canada's goal. This lack of reference to Kyoto disturbs me very much, because at least an explanation ought to be given as to why this measure is possible in the light of the commitment to the Kyoto ratification and the heavy engagement by Canada in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. This bill instead is introduced as a measure to facilitate this particular industrial sector, with no reference, however, to the overall government commitment.

For this second reason, and there is a third one, I submit to you that this bill should die in the Senate. It should die because it runs counter to and opposes the achievement of a goal set by the Government of Canada and counter to its policy, which was decided by the entire government and by this Parliament by way of the vote I referred to earlier. Bill C-48 is an emanation of just one department, the Department of Finance. It is not the policy of the Government of Canada as a whole and, since it runs counter to that policy, it ought to be rejected for that reason alone.

Because as we can see, we have on the one hand the Government of Canada doing the right thing in ratifying the Kyoto protocol. It was a good measure. It was a good decision. In addition to that, the Government of Canada is investing over $3 billion, as of the year 2000, toward the implementation of Kyoto in order to achieve that distant and rather difficult goal. But then on the other hand, we see here a proposition in this bill that is aimed at reducing taxes on the oil and gas industry. This measure makes no sense, because it would stimulate and accelerate emissions of the greenhouse gases we want to reduce in order to achieve the Kyoto objectives.

Evidently the Department of Finance does not know that a major objective of this government is to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Bill C-48 should not, therefore, be allowed to be approved in the other chamber because it is not in the public interest and because it runs counter to a key government policy.

Now we come to the third reason why the bill should be rejected. The reason is related to the depletion of global oil and gas reserves. What I am going to relate to everyone in a moment is the result of consultations with the International Energy Agency in Paris, which is an agency devoted to the study of energy and its production and the resources that are available to the global community.

According to the International Energy Agency, there is a depletion point called the “mid-depletion point” of reserves for oil, which is identified at the year 2020. In other words, in about 17 years we will reach the midpoint in the exhaustion of the global oil reserves. After that, one may want to ask, how much time is left? We are told by the same International Energy Agency that there are sufficient reserves for another 20 to 25 years. That brings us to roughly the year 2045. That is when our young pages will be in their mature years; they will probably have children and they will be looking forward to retirement.

This is the horizon being described by the International Energy Agency: by the year 2020 we will reach the mid-depletion point for oil and by the year 2045, roughly, we will exhaust the oil reserves. It could be 2050, but it is impossible to determine at this stage. There may be technological breakthroughs, yes, which may extend the depletion point perhaps to the year 2060, but we are definitely approaching within this century a point when the oil reserves will be depleted and we will reach the last drop of oil, so to speak, for use by mankind of this very valuable resource.

How does it look for natural gas? We are told that the mid-depletion point is a little better. It may not be 2020; it could be around 2050. But it is not very clear whether this calculation is accurate. It could actually be reached sooner rather than later.

To compress this particular report from the International Energy Agency, what we can say with a degree of certainty is that in about 50 years we will have reached the depletion point for oil as well as for gas, give or take perhaps a few years depending on technological advancement and the ability through technology to use better and more efficiently this specific resource so as to make it last longer. That is probably the whole purpose of having efficiency programs and efficiency research in the coming years: to make the resource last not for one or two generations but perhaps three.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the resource will be exhausted within a few decades. Therefore, we have to start planning for that time.

What is the conclusion, then, from this quick tableau I have painted for members in looking at the future? Looking at the future is always a very dangerous exercise, as we know, because one might be terribly wrong, but I do have to rely on the experts. On behalf of the public, we as politicians have to listen to the experts because they are the ones who spend their lifetimes on these matters.

It seems to me the conclusion would be that if anything we should be slowing down the exploitation of oil and gas resources rather than accelerating it. That is the logic of it all. We should not do as the official opposition, which is famous for its shortsighted policies, would do. We should not accelerate the process and produce more. Therefore the bill is out of sync. It does not fit into the long term picture that we are trying to come to grips with. That is our task as elected officials.

To conclude, there is also an economic consideration, that is, when we reach the midpoint for gas and oil around 2020 or 2025, this very same oil and gas will command a higher price on the market than it commands now because the supply will be reduced. Therefore, the returns will be greater for future generations if we postpone the exploitation of this resource for their time rather than taking advantage of it now. I hope we can see the economic logic of this kind of reasoning.

There are many reasons converging to force one to conclude that a measure to reduce the taxation of this particular sector is not desirable.

I will conclude briefly, as my time is up. It is therefore in Canada's interests to exploit carefully its natural resources and to make them last as long as possible. In this particular type of industry today, the earnings are high. We can see them in the business section of newspapers. The profits are also high. So then the question arises, why reduce taxes? Why forego a revenue that is estimated by some writers at $260 million? Why move in a direction that is counterproductive and out of sync with the overall approach of the Government of Canada? The approach has been a good one, namely, ratifying Kyoto, which is the basic, fundamental and most difficult sustainable development issue we have ever encountered and which is standing before us as a very difficult challenge to overcome.

[The Environment, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the Government of Canada did the right thing in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. It has also invested nearly $3 billion since the year 2000 toward the implementation of Kyoto goals.

On the other hand, the government is proposing a bill now before the finance committee aimed at reducing taxes on the oil and gas industry, a move which makes no sense because it would stimulate and accelerate emissions of the greenhouse gases we want to reduce to achieve the Kyoto objectives.

Evidently the finance department does not know that this government's major objective is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Bill C-48, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, should be allowed to die on the Order Paper because it is not in the public interest and because it runs counter to a key government policy.

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly beyond doubt that this legislation is highly welcome and most desirable. Perhaps the debate might be on whether it goes far enough or whether it goes too far.

Having gone over it, I would be inclined to think that the legislation offers a good initial step and as have other speakers in this debate have already indicated, it might be strengthened in committee when it gets there.

There is no doubt that this is an area that needs attention; namely, the area of regulating behaviour.

We regulate behaviour when it comes to traffic and transport. We regulate behaviour when it comes to the supply of food to consumers. We regulate behaviour in the use of the public airwaves, we could say. We regulate behaviour even in the use of the freedom of speech. It is therefore quite appropriate that we move into this area that would regulate the behaviour of the corporate sector when it comes to the security and the safety of its employees.

As others have already indicated, this is not just a measure for miners, it is a measure that would help to protect workers in a variety of industries, from construction, to forestry, to fisheries and so on.

However the event in Westray, which touched us deeply 11 years ago, is the one that somehow has triggered this measure, which made us realize that there was veil of protection to allow decisions in the corporate sector which turned out to be unreasonable and to the detriment of all employees.

The bill removes the shield that protects the corporate sector from anonymity and it aims at two aspects, which I would like to read into the record because they are very encouraging and most desirable.

First, it is to:

establish rules for attributing to organizations, including corporations, criminal liability for the acts of their representatives;

That means that corporate CEOs, decision maker and managers would be responsible for their actions should it turn out they were irresponsibly acting in the management of that particular sector in that particular firm.

Second, it is to:

establish a legal duty for all persons directing work to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of workers and the public;

That also seems to me to be well thought out, timely and will go a long way in improving behaviour and preventing accidents to workers engaged in a variety of activities across the nation every day.

There is never enough attention paid to the safety of workers at work or on site. If we seem to be focusing in this bill on miners, it is because they are probably those who face daily most danger than many other occupations and also that is where the number of accidents more frequently take place.

However through this bill, we are approaching it and applying it to the entire federal jurisdiction. It is one measure that I think the present environment will be proud and it is of course our hope on this side of the House that this measure will go through all its stages and be proclaimed possibly by the end of October so it will be part of the record of the present government.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 19th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-448, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food).

Mr. Speaker, this bill, in essence, would provide that all foods or food ingredients that are on or that contain genetically modified material be labelled.

This labelling would allow for research and post-release monitoring of potential health effects of genetically modified food. It would also enable purchasers to decide whether to purchase products containing genetically modified material.

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

[The Environment, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. With great foresight, the British government has adopted a reduction target for carbon dioxide emissions of 60% by the year 2050. Could the minister inform the House as to whether a similar and needed target will be set by the Canadian government so as to repair the climate and reduce the increasing damage to Canada's economy caused by climate change?