Clifford Lincoln

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in both official languages, for the period April 1992 to March 1993.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, very briefly I refer the hon. member to a headline today in Quorum : ``Economy outpaces Martin's budget forecast''. Canada will have growth of 3.9 per cent estimated in the coming year. We have taken over a country with a very bad economic forecast. We have committed ourselves to reduce the budget to 3 per cent of GNP within three years. We are going to do this. Things are going to get better under the Liberal government.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

I did not interrupt the hon. member. He should at least have the courtesy of listening to others. It just shows their arrogance; they never want to listen to others.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

It just shows the arrogance of the Bloc Quebecois. He accuses me of being a lyrical speaker, a speaker lyrique.

I would rather be a lyrical speaker than a bitter one. I would rather be lyrical than always try to pick quarrels with all those who do not agree with me. The financial institutions which denounce the Parti Quebecois do not have the right to make political statements. We must remember that. According to the hon. member, they do not have the right to make political statements. The Bank of Montreal does not count as they are anglos. The same goes for the Royal Bank.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, that is not very fair. The Bloc member took up all my time. Am I not entitled to two minutes?

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, a German federal minister was telling me the other day that after the war, when the allies decided to give Germany a new system of government, they opted for a federal system because it would give more flexibility to the various parts, provide a better balance between stronger regions and weaker ones, and also because it had worked particularly well in several countries, namely Switzerland, the United States and Canada.

Among all these countries, Canada is certainly the most decentralized. Having a very complex Constitution dating back to colonial times, it is a difficult country to govern. Certainly, Descartes would have concluded that the Canadian system of government is unpractical and that Canada, as is it, is impossible to govern.

The Canadian system defies the rationalism of constitutional and governmental concepts. The miracle is that-despite some frustrations and a scattered population over an immense territory, despite regional disparities that resist all our efforts, despite the formidable obstacles we are faced with every day-Canada has not only survived, but progressed in a unique way among world nations.

The descendants of the two founding peoples, who had fought each other in the past, have chosen against all odds to build a new country based on peace, fraternity and sharing.

The miracle of Canada is that it was born in peace. It has endured in peace inspired by a spirit of freedom, of justice and of tolerance. Indeed, viewed from afar, from the point of view of a stranger, our so-called quarrels, our so-called bickerings and debates, our verbal battles every day seem so picayune, so futile, so small.

Having had the chance over the years of listening to a number of citizens from various countries of the world, I know how surprised, indeed astounded, they are at our endless family debates. I see it in their eyes. I see it in their expressions. They view us as spoiled children who cannot appreciate the measure of our countless blessings and advantages.

We enjoy the special blessings of wide open spaces, the immensity and ever changing beauty of our landscapes and seascapes. We enjoy the quality of life only a rich and privileged country can offer. Above all, we share the valuable wealth of enduring values which have stood the test of time and common sacrifices: values of humility as a people, values of generosity within our community and toward others, a continuing ideal of social justice in spite of the inevitable hurdles of colour, of creed and of economic constraints.

The fabric of our values is enduring. It is firm. It is steady. The fibre of Canadian unity runs very deep. It may be quiet and understated but it is extremely strong.

Those who seek to destabilize Canada and to reject this common heritage bear an immense responsibility towards our fellow citizens. Sadly, I listen day after day to the laments of Bloc members who attack Canada and the federal system. All the ills that plague Quebec, so we heard earlier today, can be attributed to the federal system.

Independence will solve everything. This will be heaven on earth. Soon, it will be perfect bliss. The new independent Quebec will build the nirvana. Whoever sounds a warning, even an institution like the Bank of Montreal the other day, is reviled and there is a general outcry. Immediately, separatist forces call for a boycott by the people.

Those who would destroy the country, its heritage of values, its system of shared wealth, its balance of equity and fairness, hold a very deep responsibility to not only their fellow citizens in their own province but to all citizens of Canada. Inevitably separation and the risks of it, the recklessness of it, will not only bring economic hardship but will tear people apart within our communities, within Quebec; not only there, but province against province, destabilization of a wonderful country, the separation of the maritimes from Ontario, the geographical tearing apart of a country which has shared a wonderful destiny for nearly 13 decades.

Those of us who have been given the privilege of preserving this country, of preserving values we have shared for 127 years, must be prepared to defend these ideals fiercely, passionately. Madam Speaker, fraternity is a lot more productive, a lot healthier than internal squabbles! A lot more productive, a lot healthier than division! A lot more productive, a lot healthier than destruction! It is a lot more productive, a lot healthier to build bridges than to dig trenches to separate us!

Is it not better to do than to undo, to rise beyond and above instead of bickering and bemoaning, to work toward the common will instead of for sectarian objectives and interests, to build bridges that will unite us and cross the differences between us rather than walls which will separate a few of us from the others and tear us apart?

I believe passionately in Canada because Canada is a kind country, a generous country. It has been very generous to me and to my family. Quebec has also been generous to me and I cannot conceive of Canada without Quebec. Quebec is wise. It is vibrant. It is dynamic. It brings a difference to Canada that makes it unique.

Those of us who believe in our country have to fight passionately for the ideal of preserving a country that is blessed among all. I share the profound wish that Canada live long and that Quebec always be a vibrant part of it.

[The Late Reine Johnson, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of my colleagues who, yesterday, paid tribute to the mother of Daniel and Pierre-Marc Johnson, who passed away. Like two members from the Bloc, I had the chance to work with Daniel and Pierre-Marc Johnson in the Quebec National Assembly during two terms.

I was also part of of Daniel Johnson's team during his first bid for leadership. What is remarkable about the Johnson brothers is that, confronted daily by issues they approached from opposite ends of the political spectrum, they managed to keep strong and constant fraternal ties. They are friends as well as brothers. This comes from the strong family values passed on to them by their parents. I offer my deepest sympathy to Daniel, Pierre-Marc and their families.

[Intergovernmental Relations, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on May 6, the governments of Canada and Quebec signed in Ottawa an administrative agreement to harmonize our respective regulations governing the pulp and paper industry as regards the environment.

This agreement eliminates administrative duplication and overlap and creates a single window for the industry, with combined annual savings totalling $1.6 million for the two governments.

This initiative gives concrete expression to our commitment to minimize duplication and overlap between governments and reflects constructive federalism.

Besides, in the environmental sector the federal government is presently working on several agreements with the provinces with a view to achieving more effective and co-ordinated management for the benefit of Canada's environment.

[Pulp And Paper, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague the hon. member for Davenport for his respect for the environment and his tenacity in promoting the cause of the environment over the years. I do not think his case was hysterical at all. His case was in very measured tones in fact in contrast to the two speakers who spoke after him.

Of course I agree we should not be alarmists. At the same time I think we should be realists. To suggest that all over Canada pulp mills are not a problem today is to simplify the notion to a degree where it is not real any more.

I know there are state of the art mills such as Millar Western in Alberta and Saskatchewan with closed looped technologies producing zero effluents and zero toxins. They are models for mills all around the world, but they certainly are not typical of all the mills in Canada. In my own province of Quebec right up until a few years ago, the effluents from paper mills were tragic to the St. Lawrence. That has been the case all over Canada.

We recognize very much the economic importance of the pulp and paper industry. Of course it is our foremost industry. The accent was put on it by the hon. member for Davenport in saying that on the contrary we must be proactive in making sure that the output of the industry is enhanced, that the quality of its products sell all over the world. It is in that sense the motion was produced. We have to see it in a proactive light.

In 1992 after tremendous consultations involving stakeholders from the industry, from environmental groups and from governments, the Canadian government decided to produce a comprehensive set of regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and also under the Fisheries Act. The regulations mandated that mills would not produce any more

effluent that resulted in dioxins and furans by 1994. That has been the case.

However I will correct my colleague, the critic for the Bloc Quebecois, when he said it was due to the Liberals that extensions were granted, as they were. I will remind him that the amendments to the 1992 regulations providing for extensions were produced by the Conservative government. If members do not agree with me they can check it and challenge me tomorrow in Question Period.

What happened was that these amendments to the regulations were produced so that when mills applied for extensions of time before December 31, 1995, there was no choice but to grant these extensions.

I know we have to do better. We have to examine the chlorine issue very carefully. There has been a change in gaseous chlorine used in mills in Canada by a 70 per cent decline. Instead they are choosing chlorine dioxide bleaching which is far less harmful to the environment. As a result there has been a dramatic decrease in the effluents producing dioxins and furans.

I will give some figures which are pretty startling. The total discharges of chlorinated dioxins and furans as measured in toxic equivalent units discharged from all pulp mills using chlorine bleaching in Canada has decreased from over 350 grams per year in 1988 to less than 6 grams in mid-1993.

We have to carry on our pursuit for completely dioxin and furan free effluents, zero discharge effluents, not just at the end of the pipe effluents but preventive technologies that will produce closed loop technologies which will stop discharges of these altogether. Such is the case for Millar Western.

Some very important initiatives are now in progress. First of all, side effect research is being carried out today by Environment Canada and other parties. The report of the study will be completed in a matter of a few months. The study is examining the effect of chlorine and chlorinated products used in pulp mills and other manufacturing uses. Also a memorandum of understanding has just been signed by the Government of Canada with the Pulp and Paper Research Institute to try and establish new technologies in closed loop circuits so that effluents will be completely toxin free.

There is also the St. Lawrence program just signed with Quebec, which will force all manufacturing companies-there were 56 of them, including the pulp and paper mills, and now there are 106-to reduce effluents, which have been reduced by 70 per cent so far, by 90 per cent by 1998. Consequently, measures are currently being developed. I know we have to improve what we are doing. This is why I personally and all the people in the department are closely monitoring what is happening especially in the United States, where an extensive study is under way on chlorine and on the steps to be taken to eliminate dioxin and furan effluents resulting from chlorine.

My colleague from Davenport also spoke about health, and I agree completely with him. This is why the Vision 2000 component of the St. Lawrence action plan-as will also be the case in Ontario-will include a component on health to measure the effects on the health of living species and especially humans. It is essential that we begin to look into the health effects of toxic effluents, not only from pulp and paper mills, but also from all plants.

I agree completely with my colleague that what is needed is a heightened public awareness campaign so that the public can find out about the environmental impact of a particular product.

That is the reason for the ecochoice program and I would be quite happy if most of our paper, certainly the procurement of the House of Commons to start as an example, were unbleached paper. Why not start here as an example?

It seems to me that we can also produce good white paper, bleached so long as it is under closed loop technology or non-toxic technology, and at the same time use other measures which eventually people accept.

I use stationery that is brown in colour, so does my colleague, and I find it receives acceptance today all over the place. Ten years ago recycled paper was not acceptable. Today it is.

We have to change our ways, our attitudes, find a means for all of us, including my colleagues over there, including colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, to find a certain consensus that yes, industry has to carry on. It is our bread basket. It is the way we live and manage to earn our living.

At the same time it has to be done with full respect for the environment, for the ecosystems, for our biodiversity, for human health, not only in one place, perhaps in the member's riding, but all over Canada without regard to where it is or how it is done.

We may reach it, not tomorrow or the day after, but we have to set an objective of a toxic free, dioxin and furan free ecosystem all over Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of its plan to modernize Canada's wildlife legislation, the federal government has brought forward this day amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

In 1916 Canada and the United States signed the migratory birds convention to protect species of migratory birds common to both countries. Bird populations were declining rapidly at the turn of the century and in 1917, Parliament implemented the convention by passing the Migratory Birds Convention Act which regulated the hunting and use of migratory birds and prohibited their trafficking and commercialization.

The legislation also provided for the establishment of migratory bird sanctuaries. Today there are a total of 101 migratory bird sanctuaries in Canada covering roughly 11.3 million hectares of land.

There have been only minor amendments to the act since 1917. It has become suddenly outdated. It no longer provides our migratory birds with the protection they need. Seventy-seven years in the continental management of migratory birds have taught us some important lessons. It is time to put these

lessons to work and to modernize the legislation through early action on the bill.

The government's amendments to the act will update the definitions in the act. It will make them appropriate for migratory bird protection as we enter the 21st century. The act's prohibitions will be clarified.

The provisions of the act are being modernized, particularly with regard to administration and enforcement, because the old act no longer provides effective means or penalties to deter law breakers. This is especially true with regard to poaching and with regard to illegal commercial uses of migratory birds.

As is pointed out in the global convention on biological diversity which Canada signed, a strong and effective legislative program is an important part of any strategy to conserve and protect our natural resources.

Poaching is a serious crime. By killing protected migratory birds, poachers destroy a wildlife heritage common to all Canadians and to all inhabitants of countries which share, benefit from and depend on these birds. Amendments to the legislation call for increasing possible fines to a maximum of $25,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. Provision is also made for additional fines in an amount equal to the monetary benefits accrued as a result of the commission of the offence. Furthermore, under the proposed amendments, the courts would be able to make sentencing orders directed at the lawbreaker. The courts would be given increased authority to deal with lawbreakers. Provision is also made by issuing tickets.

Moreover, amendments provide for harsher treatment for illegal commercial transactions such as the sale of products, the sale of companion birds and the illegal organized hunting of large numbers of birds. Fines for illegal commercial transactions would correspond to the nature of the offence and could include the seizure of weapons, vehicles, boats, aircraft and even companies used by the guilty parties in the commission of the offence.

Updating the Migratory Birds Convention Act will help ensure that populations of birds are maintained at sustainable levels. Amendments to the act were developed only after extensive consultations with affected interested parties, including the provinces and territories, the aboriginal groups, conservation groups and other non-government organizations, hunters and ordinary citizens. The proposed changes have been requested by all provinces and territories and by many interested groups.

The federal government carries out its responsibilities for migratory birds through a strong partnership with the provinces and territories. Provincial and territorial wildlife agencies assist in migratory bird enforcement. Various types of protected areas form one network for havens for migrating wildlife, whether they sanctuaries be federal, provincial or territorial in jurisdiction.

These amendments will strengthen that partnership even further. For example, with the agreement of the provinces and territories, designation of conservation officers for the purposes of enforcing the Migratory Birds Convention Act will be made easier. Any seizures of illegally obtained wildlife could be sold with the proceeds going to the provinces, the territories or the federal government as appropriate.

The amendments will help us become better and more effective stewards of our migratory bird sanctuaries as part of an overall concept of flexible landscape and ecosystem management. For example, at certain times of the year, such as the breeding season, quite strict protection measures might be called for, perhaps to prevent beach goers from walking on plovers' eggs. At other times of the year uses may be more flexible. Good law, good enforcement and good management can help us sustain our ecosystems.

Set in the broader perspective of both the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the convention it implements, this is one of the safeguards concerning one aspect in a series of global or hemisphere-wide partnerships to protect birds and other wildlife as well as their habitats.

These partnerships take the form of land conservation programs like the Canadian Wildlife Service Latin American Program in which Canada and its Latin American neighbours join together to preserve the southern habitats of our common visitors. They also include the Biodiversity Convention, a global instrument as I indicated earlier.

This spinoff from the UNCED recognizes the value of wildlife and its habitat for the world. And this value stems from the fact that fauna and flora are part of a natural heritage without compare, represent a major socioeconomic resource and play a growing role as a general health status indicator for increasingly stressed ecosystems. Gulls and cormorants are valuable for instance to show the level of environmental disruption in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence region.

We must not forget the important contribution to our economy made by activities related to fish, fauna and flora. As a matter of fact, Statistics Canada indicated that Canadians and American tourists have spent, in 1991 alone, $1.4 billion on recreation activities involving water birds. Not only has spending in that area helped maintain over 30,000 jobs, but it has generated close to $1 billion in personal income and $743 million in federal and provincial tax revenues.

I would like to stress that only very minor changes were made to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. We must therefore proceed as quickly as possible with these amendments.

The provisions of the act are being modernized particularly with regard to administration and enforcement because the old act no longer provides the effective means of penalties to deter law breakers. This is especially true with regard to poaching and illegal commercial uses of migratory birds. As pointed out in the global convention on biological diversity which Canada has signed, a strong and effective legislative program is a key part of any strategy to conserve and protect natural resources.

Therefore the government's amendments to the act will update definitions in the act. It will make them appropriate for migratory bird protection as we enter the 21st century. The act's prohibition will be clarified.

I urge all members of the House, regardless of political party, to support the bill very strongly. It represents a big step forward in our common goal toward sustainable development.

I hope that all the hon. members of this House will strongly support this bill.