Charles L. CACCIA

CACCIA, The Hon. Charles L., P.C.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Davenport (Ontario)
Birth Date
April 28, 1930
Deceased Date
May 3, 2008
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Caccia
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=328b9cb9-24ea-4602-abb8-ff33227c2f3f&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
economist, educator, publisher

Parliamentary Career

June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada (October 20, 1969 - March 4, 1970)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (March 5, 1970 - September 30, 1970)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (October 1, 1970 - September 30, 1971)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
  • Chief Government Whip's assistant (January 1, 1974 - January 1, 1975)
  • Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party (January 1, 1974 - January 1, 1975)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
  • Chief Government Whip's assistant (January 1, 1974 - January 1, 1975)
  • Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party (January 1, 1974 - January 1, 1975)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
  • Minister of Labour (September 22, 1981 - August 11, 1983)
  • Minister of the Environment (August 12, 1983 - June 29, 1984)
  • Minister of the Environment (June 30, 1984 - September 16, 1984)
September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
  • Minister of the Environment (June 30, 1984 - September 16, 1984)
November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
LIB
  Davenport (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 369)


May 10, 2004

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans why he requested a nine month suspension of the scientific panel's recommendation to protect 12 marine species, including 4 Atlantic cod populations? In doing so, the minister delayed the necessary and urgent action to protect these endangered species.

The minister's reply was contradictory. He listed conservation and the sustainable use of all marine resources as his first priority, but then went on to suggest that if these species were protected such action would have a significant impact on coastal communities. He also recommended a nine month consultation process on species, the very same scientists had declared endangered, threatened or of special concern. To make things worse, the minister allowed for 6,500 tonnes of Atlantic cod to be commercialized.

Given the strong message by the scientific community recommending an endangered species status, the consequences of the nine month delay plus the permission to catch some 6,500 tonnes of Atlantic cod will jeopardize the species identified as endangered, threatened or of special concern.

Let me bring to the attention of the House what scientists are saying. First, of the 12 aquatic species placed on the extended list in process, 9 have been given the designation of threatened or endangered, with the remaining 3 species being of special concern. Atlantic cod from Newfoundland and Labrador have been given endangered status because their population has gone down 97% since the early 1970s and 99% since the early 1960s. Scientists point to the fact that there has been virtually no recovery in their numbers. Scientists also point to fishing and fishing induced changes as two main threats to the cod population.

Second, statistics confirm Atlantic cod in the northern gulf of the St. Lawrence is also at a population low. It has declined by 80% over the last 30 years and has threatened status because of overfishing. Atlantic cod in the Maritimes is also in decline, also because of overfishing.

Third, the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to lift the moratorium on cod and reopen fisheries is evidence that commercial interests are given precedence over the Species at Risk Act that gives the government powers to protect all species, including cod, which become and when they become endangered.

Scientists say fishing is the primary factor responsible for the Atlantic cod becoming endangered. Why then reopen the cod fishery, thus flying in the face of well researched recommendations by scientists?

Therefore, tonight I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reconsider the decision to suspend the scientific recommendations and instead allow the recommended inclusion of the 12 marine species, under the Species at Risk Act, to become law.

Topic:   Adjournment Proceedings
Subtopic:   First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act
Full View Permalink

May 10, 2004

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to remain silent let alone indifferent to the pictures of Iraqi prisoners. It is hard to find words to express adequately the horror and agony caused to human beings by other human beings.

These pictures do not reflect on the American people. We know that. But they do reflect on the U.S. administration. Yet, no political action has been taken to turn into deed the indignation expressed by the U.S. President. As each day goes by, without resignation or dismissal, the impression grows that words are not being matched by action.

We can be grateful to the International Red Cross for having gone public with its report. We can be grateful for the existence of an international convention that makes the Red Cross the agent in defence of humanitarian treatment.

The pictures of Iraqi prisoners are devastating. We all have a responsibility to discharge if we are to rebuild peace with the Arab world. That is why we as parliamentarians have to speak up.

Topic:   Statements By Members
Subtopic:   Iraq
Full View Permalink

May 5, 2004

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, researchers at Harvard University and the American Public Health Association report that smog and carbon dioxide are affecting respiratory health.

In less than 20 years the rate of childhood asthma in Canada has risen from 2.5% to 11.2%. In the case of adults, 14% of Canadians are diagnosed with asthma.

The high concentration of carbon dioxide can affect asthma in several ways. Research shows that cities are under a dome of carbon dioxide created by the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal and natural gas. Carbon dioxide does not disperse. It reaches high concentration and alters the climate of cities underneath, thus affecting human health.

Christine Rogers, of the Harvard School of Public Health, refers to asthmatic children as being hit “with a powerful one-two punch: exposure to the worst air quality problems and allergen exposure arising from global warming”. Kyoto opponents may want to reflect on these findings.

Topic:   Statements By Members
Subtopic:   The Environment
Full View Permalink

May 5, 2004

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, on March 26 I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, when would Canada ratify the biosafety protocol, given that we signed it, but not ratified it, in the year 2001?

In his reply the minister indicated that 45 countries had ratified the agreement. Actually, at the time, 89 nations had ratified the agreement and today, as we speak, the current number stands at 96.

Furthermore, the minister did not indicate when Canada would ratify. As his predecessor had, he mentioned an action plan leading to ratification after stakeholder consultations. This would be good news were it not for the fact that consultations have been dragging on for years.

Consultations surrounding Canada's involvement with the protocol have been discussed as late as February in international meetings. By now, Canada should be on the verge of ratification.

Let me add at this point the following observation. First, 96 countries, including Mexico, Japan and the European Union have already ratified the biosafety protocol. They have adopted the precautionary principle dealing with the risks posed by importing genetically engineered organisms.

Canada currently exports approximately 22 million metric tonnes of grain annually, 80% of which may have trace levels of genetically modified organisms. Our exports will be greatly affected by the standards set by countries which have ratified the biosafety protocol.

Second, on March 31 of this year Mr. Stemshorn, the assistant deputy minister of the Environmental Protection Service at Environment Canada, informed the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that Canada will be subject to the regulations imposed by importing countries.

By not ratifying the protocol we have very little influence in the decision making process on import regulations. In addition, further delays would damage Canada's access to foreign markets because genetically modified grain continues to be sold unlabelled.

As the purity of genetic stock of grain is affected, Canadian farmers will have an increasing uphill battle maintaining access and penetrating international markets.

For all these reasons, delaying ratification of the biosafety protocol is not in Canada's best interests. The next round of international meetings will take place next spring. Canada needs to participate fully in these discussions. Therefore, it stands to reason that the Government of Canada should take into full account Canada's long term interests in growing global markets, and also ensure Canada's voice is in the international fora.

This evening, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell us when Canada will ratify the biosafety protocol?

Topic:   Adjournment Proceedings
Subtopic:   The Income Tax Act
Full View Permalink

May 5, 2004

Hon. Charles Caccia

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my thanks to the hon. parliamentary secretary for his comprehensive reply. Unfortunately, he has not answered my question, namely, when will Canada ratify the biosafety convention?

He also indicated that consultations with industry are ongoing. These consultations started after the signing of the biosafety convention in 2001 and have gone on for three years. One begins to wonder how long the consultations will last.

Finally, I do not agree with the statement just made that the non-ratification does not affect our effectiveness in round table discussions on the matter. Therefore, I must ask again, could the parliamentary secretary at least indicate when the biosafety convention will be ratified?

Topic:   Adjournment Proceedings
Subtopic:   The Income Tax Act
Full View Permalink