Karen Kraft Sloan

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, February 8th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an act to protect human health and the environment by oxygenating automotive fuels and eliminating the gasoline additive MMT.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to protect human health and the environment against certain harmful or potentially harmful automotive fuels by reducing automotive pollution in Canada.

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

[Canada Marine Act, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, again I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill on behalf of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis who is unable to be here today.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill on behalf of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis who is unable to be here today.

The purpose of the bill is to protect human health and environment against certain harmful or potentially harmful automotive fuels by reducing automotive pollution in Canada.

[Species At Risk Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his very fine speech. I am sure that all of us are aware of the leadership that he shows on environmental issues and with his presence on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I want to ask for a clarification or an expansion on some of the points he has raised with regard to the involvement of the parliamentary standing committee in the process of hearing witnesses and the amendment process. A lot of us in the House hear about how impotent some backbenchers are. One of the key roles that members of the House have to play is on a parliamentary standing committee. All of the members on both sides of the House are aware that a parliamentary standing committee reports to parliament and to you, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. member make a few comments on that?

[Species At Risk Act, June 12th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, in the opening to her recent book The Nature of Economies , Jane Jacobs writes, “To be heard, a book needs a collaborator: a reader with a sufficiently open mind to take in what the book is saying and dispute or agree, but in any case think about it”. May I suggest that speeches in this place have the same requirement. They need a collaborator, they need an audience with sufficiently open minds to take in the message of the speech.

I am sad to say that oftentimes on a issue of such fundamental importance to Canadians as the environment, when those concerned with its preservation and restoration rise to speak, few are really willing to listen. Many in this place say they care and many make fine speeches themselves, but words are a poor substitute for action. All of the rhetoric in the world will not save a river, a fish, a forest, nor will it protect a child from a hazardous contaminant. Our words will not protect species at risk, only our actions can.

Any movement to restore, preserve or protect the natural environment is often faced by an onslaught of criticism from industrial interests. They are quick to say this will cost jobs. They are quick to accuse those seeking to protect the environment of being alarmists. They put forward a false dichotomy of environment versus economy.

In the case of endangered species, they cite the wicked spotted owl as the single cause of job losses and the closing of communities within the forest industry in the United States. This is not true but such mythologizing serves their needs. Such alarmism pays dividends to those who are fundamentally uninterested or even opposed to protecting the environment and to protecting species, many of which are threatened by the activities of the industries in question. What many fail to recognize is as E. O. Wilson states, “that the planet's biological wealth is the basis for our material and cultural wealth”.

A few weeks ago EcoSummit 2000 brought medical doctors, scientists, aboriginal leaders and policy experts to Ottawa to meet with parliamentarians and discuss the effects of water borne pollutants on human health. The special guest speaker at the Monday evening session was the noted American environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Professor Kennedy reminded us in a very eloquent and passionate speech that we cannot separate the environment from the economy. They are not in contradiction to each other nor are they factors to be balanced one against the other on some mythological teeter-totter of government policy making. They are entwined. To quote Professor Kennedy, “In 100% of the situations, good environmental policy is identical to good economic policy”. Identical. We must always remember, environmental injury is deficit spending. It is passing the cost of our generation's prosperity and loading it onto the backs of our children.

The human animal is part of nature, yet too many see humanity as a separate entity. As a result we try to tame nature. We try to civilize and domesticate nature. We make war against nature. Yet we continue to ignore the fundamental aspect of our humanity. We are in nature and nature is in us. We cannot control nature. We are merely part of a wider natural system. Humans can only intervene in processes of nature. If we respect the rest of nature, if we learn from nature, then it is possible to conduct human activities in harmony with nature. If we show no respect and continue to act through greed, brashness or ignorance we will face dire consequences. As Jane Jacobs said:

Nothing is more unforgiving of error than nature. If we poison our own water and air with hormone-mimicking chemicals...nature's solution for maladaptation is extinction.

When we respect nature we can begin to understand the incredible services it provides. For those who must, putting a monetary value on nature's services is difficult for many reasons. What price can be assigned to the last drop of water, the last gasp of fresh air? But it is not impossible.

In his book Natural Capitalism , Paul Hawken estimates that biological services that flow directly into society from the stock of natural capital are worth at least $36 trillion U.S. annually. Yet these fundamental services are rarely understood and grossly undervalued. Why must we protect nature? We must protect nature because it enriches us. As Professor Kennedy said:

It enriches us economically, yes, it's the base of our economy, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. But it also enriches us culturally, recreationally, aesthetically, spiritually and historically. It connects us to one another; it connects us to our history and our culture. Human beings have other appetites besides money, and if we don't feed them we are not going to grow up. We are not going to become the kinds of beings that we are supposed to become. We're not going to fulfil ourselves or our destinies. When we destroy nature we diminish ourselves, and we impoverish our children.

Biological diversity is vital to the healthy operation of natural systems, the same systems that remove toxins from our water and air, that provide safe containment of our aquifers and that restore nutrients to soil. Therefore we must protect species in order to preserve biological diversity.

Which of our present species of plants will prove to contain ingredients essential to future medicines, vaccines and cures? We cannot know this, hence we must protect them for our children and our grandchildren.

The UN convention on biological diversity recognizes that biological diversity must be conserved. In order to do this, sustainable use of components of biological diversity must be ensured. To further this we must have a fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

Article 8(k) of the convention on biological diversity calls on all contracting parties to develop and maintain necessary legislation and/or the regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations. Canada should be congratulated as the first industrial country to ratify the UN convention on biological diversity. As a nation we made a commitment to protect endangered species through this convention. It is now long past the time to act on this commitment.

The House now has before it Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Already serious concerns about this bill have been raised not only by environmentalists and conservationists and environmental lawyers, but by scientists and industry representatives. Incredibly many concerns are shared by these various groups.

If Bill C-33 passes the second reading vote, it will then proceed to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. As part of parliamentary procedure, witnesses will be called before the committee which will hear their presentations on this bill.

We will do nothing to protect species at risk unless this bill leaves committee as a good, effective piece of legislation. The House must support legislation that is strong, fair, effective and makes biological sense. Unfortunately Bill C-33 is wanting. Legislation must also be enforceable and it must be enforced.

The environment committee of this session of parliament has a fine tradition of being open minded and thoughtful as it listens to the many expert witnesses who come before it. The environment committee has a practice of serving the interests of Canadians by taking tough stands to protect our natural heritage. I expect that the environment committee will continue to act in the public interest to protect our nation's commons and will also honour parliamentary tradition in remembering its responsibilities to parliament.

I remind members of the House, as I have many times in the past, of this place's origin. The true test of any democracy is its ability to give voice to all its members. Wealth and position cannot be the criteria for participation in a democracy. The power of democracy is in its articulation of the public interest and its action to protect the common weal. Indeed, as our colleagues from earlier times during the beginning of the evolution of parliamentary democracy represented the common person, not just the rich and not just the nobility, we too must represent all Canadians.

As we look down, we see that the floor of the House is covered in a green carpet which reminds us of democracy's humble beginnings. Ordinary people would meet on the grassy green commons of their villages to discuss and debate the concerns of the day. We can trace a connection to nature all the way back to the very birthplace of our parliamentary tradition.

What is it that our ancestors so wisely understood that we of this House in so many ways have sadly forgotten? It is that we are of nature. We have been given a public trust to protect the commons, a commons that includes those who do not vote: children, the unborn and the natural world around us. This is a duty we cannot ignore. I call on all members of the House to ensure when this bill goes before committee that it is properly amended.

[Infrastructure, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the municipalities of Georgina, East Gwillimbury, Newmarket and King in my riding of York North are concerned about improving and greening their infrastructure.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House how the two green funds launched this weekend in London can help these municipalities? What role will the Federation of Canadian Municipalities play?

[Species At Risk Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as long as I can be assured of my opportunity to speak on this very important legislation, I would be happy to call it 6.41 p.m.

[Water Quality, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week leading scientists and medical experts from across Canada came to Ottawa to talk with parliamentarians about water pollution and its connection to human health. It is very clear from their discussions that there are a number of gaps in federal water quality policy.

A series of recommendations will result from this meeting. Many participants said that while there is good enabling legislation available, governments need to do much more to use and enforce this legislation. As well, a great deal of concern was raised about the erosion of the federal government's science capacity, about the need for stronger, better funded science in the public interest. We also heard about the need to perform ongoing monitoring.

I am sure all parliamentarians will look forward to the forthcoming recommendations from EcoSummit 2000.

[Competition Act, April 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the public consultation component of the five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act recently concluded. It now remains for the Environmental Assessment Agency to provide those comments to the Minister of the Environment who will then report to the House by January of next year.

A number of concerns were raised about the act through the consultation process. A few of these include: The review itself is not independent; the Environmental Assessment Agency should have a much stronger role in co-ordinating and overseeing assessments; there must be improved opportunities for public participation in environmental assessment; federal funding for environment assessment must be increased; more emphasis must be placed on the assessment of cumulative effects; more attention must be paid to broadening the scope of projects, and to monitoring and follow-up; and, the federal-provincial environmental harmonization accord must not be allowed to detract from a strong federal presence in environmental assessment.

In fact, it is not clear how the harmonization accord's subagreement on environmental assessment will affect environmental assessment in Canada and what implications it has for the current CEAA review.

Many have commented on the need for the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to have a formal role in the review of the assessment act. To date, it has none.

The committee is an important component in the parliamentary process surrounding environmental legislation. For example, it undertook a mandatory one year review of the Canadian Environmental Protect Act commencing June 10, 1994. One year later, it tabled its report in the House of Commons in June 1995.

The intensive review of CEPA 88 culminated in a report entitled “It's About Our Health! Towards Pollution Prevention”, containing 141 recommendations. Many referred to the report as thorough, forward-looking and a comprehensive and substantive contribution to environmental protection in Canada.

For reasons such as these, many feel that the committee should be formally involved in the CEAA review process.

[Environment, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is one of the most important issues facing the world and our nation today. I understand that over the last two days federal, provincial and territorial ministers of energy and the environment have been meeting on this subject in Vancouver.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources please inform the House about the discussions that took place?