Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party will concur with the whip of the government on that point as long as all the Progressive Conservative amendments are voted on at the same time.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party will concur with the whip of the government on that point as long as all the Progressive Conservative amendments are voted on at the same time.
Division No. 425 May 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is with a degree of sadness that I rise to speak to the amendments in Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 16, 39 and 47 at report stage of Bill C-78.
The reason I am sad is that individuals who are at home watching this series of speeches will be thinking that there is serious ongoing parliamentary debate to ensure that the right thing is being done with respect to this piece of legislation, in particular with these Group No. 3 amendments. I am sad to say that again the government has resorted to closure. Again the democratically elected individuals in the House are not able to properly debate this very important issue we have at hand.
We are primarily talking about the pensions of our valued civil servants whether they be in the RCMP or other areas. The average pension of these individuals is in the neighbourhood of $9,000. The government under the guise of this legislation will say that it is managing its resources in a more prudent fashion. We know that the government may be looking at potentially garnishing the accumulated surplus in these funds.
I will revert to Group No. 3 as it is imperative that we refer to the amendments. Motions Nos. 16, 39 and 47 in Group No. 3 would give the power to set pension contributions to parliament rather than to the President of the Treasury Board. This is a small step toward restoring part of the role parliamentarians should play in Canada, but it does not address many of the more serious deficiencies in Bill C-78.
For example, this bill does not make a strong enough link between the actuary of the fund, that is, the CPP actuary, and the board that will oversee the investments of the fund. In fact, nowhere in Bill C-78 is it specified when and how often the actuary will meet with or make a report on the fund to the board or to the government.
The President of Treasury Board will have incredible powers under this legislation with the ultimate power to set contributions and benefit levels. Imagine the following situation.
The government of the day decides it will have an election in a year or two. It wants to offer the voters some election goodies in the platform. Essentially the government wants to buy the votes of Canadians. A nice quiet and discreet way of stockpiling a little dough for just this occasion would be to set a pension contribution rate slightly higher than the rate really needs to be. In a year or two the government would have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around. The best part is that nobody would have seen the government building up this nice little slush fund.
Bill C-78 will allow the government to withdraw the current surplus of over $28 billion from the fund over a period of up to 15 years. Any future surplus can also be withdrawn from the fund, or the government may reduce employee or employer contributions. What are the chances the Liberals will do the right thing with these surpluses?
Since 1993 the Liberal government has continuously taken more from Canadians while giving less in return. Tax revenues are at a record high and government services are at a record low. From 1993 to 1998 the government took in an extra $35 billion in tax revenues but at the same time cut $20 billion from health care and education transfers, the priorities of Canadians.
There is no mechanism in Bill C-78 for parliament to hold the government accountable for these surplus withdrawals. Let us look at what is currently happening with the EI fund. The government takes in over $7 billion annually within the EI fund than the program actually consumes on an annual basis. With this track record, I am fearful for the Canadian taxpayer that Bill C-78 will permit the government to do this with another fund.
Currently pension and CPP contributions are linked and capped at 7.5% of salary for public servants, the RCMP and the Canadian forces. Bill C-78 will de-link these contributions and allow for CPP contributions to increase until 2003 while pension contributions will remain frozen at 4%.
After 2003, pension contributions are expected to increase so the employees' contributions rise to 40% of total contributions. This means that public servants, the RCMP and Canadian forces personnel could see pension and CPP contributions rise steadily over the next five to 10 years. This could seriously erode the progress the Canadian forces made in their quality of life salary increases announced recently, and I will commend the government for taking that step in the right direction.
Bill C-78 establishes a public service pension fund investment board similar to the Canada pension plan investment board. The fund will now invest in the stock and bond markets rather than the Government of Canada bonds it now invests in. In fact, maximizing returns is written into Bill C-78 which is a good idea. This will help the pension fund achieve higher returns and allow for lower contributions in the future.
The pension fund however will be subject to the current rules regarding foreign assets, that is, the fund can only invest up to 20% of the assets in foreign property. This will have two major impacts for employees and pensioners.
Their savings will not grow as fast as they otherwise could if there were less restrictive rules on foreign content. When this fund has assets in the $100 billion to $120 billion range, it could end up costing nearly $250 million in forgone wealth accumulation because historically Canadian markets have not performed as well as the American and European markets. Even most of Asia has done better than Canada despite the recent crashes and meltdowns.
The second impact of the 20% foreign content rule relates to the ultimate size of this fund. In not too many years the fund will account for a substantial portion of the stock markets in Canada. How will it be able to buy and sell companies without disrupting the markets? Managers of mutual funds in the $1 billion to $2 billion range say that they have problems buying or selling some stocks because their actions cause significant variations in the price of a stock. Imagine the effects of a fund worth over $100 billion.
Another problem not addressed in this legislation is that of the RCMP. The RCMP's pension funds will be invested in this fund as well, but the Liberals as far as I can tell have not thought about some of the problems that might arise from this fact.
What would happen if the RCMP began investigating a company that was part of its pension fund? If the officers had to choose between shutting down the firm due to illegal activities and turning a blind eye because $5 billion or $10 billion of their retirement money was at stake, what would they do?
I can think of the example of YBM Magnex. It was found to be linked to the Russian Mafia. It was delisted from the stock exchange and by some mutual companies, and individual investors lost millions of dollars in their portfolios.
The current Liberal government seems to have an insatiable appetite for money, no matter where the money comes from, taxpayers or government employees. Bill C-78 will concentrate the power of cabinet ministers and further erode the role of parliamentarians. If the government truly wanted to maximize returns for retirees, it would increase the allowable limit on foreign content in the bill and all other pension and RRSP legislation.
Given the Liberal track record to date of record levels of tax revenue, government expenditures being consistently higher than estimated, and erosion of government services, Canadians will surely pay more and get less.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am quite concerned. Just a few moments ago we were advised that there will be a briefing tomorrow at 11 a.m. in Room 215, Wellington Building concerning Bill C-32. I was under the impression that anything the government might want to say or not say with respect to this legislation would actually be said in the House of Commons.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, at report stage. When the member for Davenport talked about this piece of legislation, he referred to it as “a very pioneering bill. It is Canada's principal bill with respect to the controlled use of toxins in the environment.
It was a very pioneering bill that was first established by the Progressive Conservative Party in 1988 by the hon. Tom McMillan and spearheaded by the former environment minister, the hon. Jean J. Charest. It is in that light that I take great pride in trying to augment this particular bill as we went through the clause by clause process at committee level.
Alarm bells should go off for Canadians when they hear that the bill had over 400 amendments at the clause by clause process and now we are facing over 200 amendments. That is almost 700 amendments. I believe this shows that the bill is flawed in its own right.
After speaking to my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska, I know he is not all that surprised by this. This is a government, after all, which has not passed one piece of environmental legislation despite the fact that it has been in office for six years. It did pass the MMT bill but that cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million because it was not banned under CEPA, which is what the government should have done in the first place.
The fact that we are cleaning up the government's work should not come as a surprise to Canadians when it comes to the environment.
I will refer to a couple of issues that fall in Group No. 1, particularly the issue of virtual elimination. We were satisfied that the original definition contained in the bill before it went to committee was workable. It provided for the reduction of releases to a quantity of concentration below a measurable amount that was at or approaching the lowest level of quantification.
We supported regulations to control the release of substances to define virtually eliminated amount. We also supported the bill's power under section 93 to totally, partially or conditionally prohibit the manufacture, use and processing of toxic substances. We believe that if the government intended on eliminating use of a substance, it should use the provision. Otherwise, if it intends to virtually eliminate a substance then it should be able to set levels of release by regulation that are virtually negligible.
I would like to mention something that is almost unprecedented in my short time here in the House and, as I understand it, for a lot of people who have been here for quite some time. We are about to make an amendment to an amendment.
The government had a definition in Bill C-32 of virtual elimination before it went into the clause by clause process. The parliamentary secretary tabled an amendment which passed. He is now tabling another amendment admitting the government goofed not once, but twice. I think the government had it right the first time, but at least it had the sense to recognize that. It tabled an amendment just the other day after we had already put in the amendment that corrected it.
We now have two levels of virtual elimination to establish and achieve. It is unclear as currently written which one would be deemed the operable amount. There is first a supreme goal of virtual elimination defined as the ultimate reduction of the quantity or concentration of the substance in the release below the level of quantification specified by the minister in the virtual elimination list.
Level quantification is defined as the lowest possible measured amount. The ultimate goal is to get below that amount.
Then there is this process to help us gradually get there and it is called “achieving virtual elimination”. In this section, the minister prescribes a quantity or concentration of a substance that may be released into the environment. This is very different from “below a level of quantification, which is the lowest concentration that can be accurately measured”. Instead it is a realistic level that industry is required to attain when aiming for elimination.
If the government's intentions were to make the level set under achieving virtual elimination the objective industry is to pursue, then it should be made clear. My amendments, the amendments of the Progressive Conservative Party, make this process clear. They clean up the change the government and the Reform Party supported in committee.
I would like to emphasize that this mistake was actually supported by not one party but two parties at the clause by clause level: the government and the Reform. However, both parties have recognized that the original wording was the right way to go.
The government's amended committee language creates uncertainty. This is because there is a gap between a level that is a step below the lowest measurable quantity and a level that achieves virtual elimination by targeting a release amount prescribed under subclause 65(3) which considers social, economic and technical matters. This means there would be a gap between what the law prescribes we achieve and what we actually enforce.
Based on the voting pattern document I received this morning, my amendments on this clause will be put before similar ones introduced by Reform, the Bloc and the government. As a result, given that we want to proceed in a very time effective way, I would be very shocked if the government were to vote against our amendment because it would be voting against its own amendment in a very different way. I would also be shocked if Reform did the same and somewhat shocked if the Bloc did as well.
The definition of virtual elimination, as originally tabled in Bill C-32 before it went to clause by clause, is a better way to go and that is what the Progressive Conservative Party will be doing with its amendment in terms of trying to clean up the government's error.
The bill that was sent to committee included a clause 2.2, which called for the avoidance of duplication and overlap in legislation regulation in areas that involve the protection of the environment and human health. It proposed to resolve any potential disputes by having the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the minister responsible for the other act jointly decide whether measures that can be taken under the act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter.
This was removed from the act during the committee review in favour of introducing separate clauses in appropriate sections of the bill where the potential for overlap and duplication existed.
The new clauses shifted the power to decide which law would prevail to cabinet from the three ministers, except in the case of biotechnology where the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment make the decision.
Members may actually agree that my amendment makes more sense. My amendment would actually have the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the applicable other minister make a collaborative decision. Those are the ministers who would know their acts the most. It would provide Canadians with political accountability about who is making decisions, as opposed to sending it to some murky area known as the cabinet.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of National Revenue. These are individuals who know their portfolios quite well. However, why would we ask them to make an intervention in a piece of legislation that, quite honestly, they do not study on a day to day basis. That is why I believe it is more prudent for us to have it done by the Minister of Health, the Minister of the Environment and one other. My amendment tries to do that in this very section.
I would also like to point out a couple of other motions that the Progressive Conservative Party intends to support. The first one is the NDP Motion No. 26. It attempts to further entrench the precautionary principle in the administrative duties section of the act. We supported this inclusion of the principle at committee stage and we support this motion which defines what the precautionary principle means for the purposes of this section.
NDP Motion No. 83 attempts to do the same, except this time it defines the reference to precautionary principle referred to in the section dealing with screening and assessment of toxic substances.
There is one motion, which I am a little bit troubled by and which I think Canadians should be very concerned about. It is Motion No. 206 tabled by the Reform Party. This motion, dealing with emergency planning, refers to one of the most severe toxins in existence being slated as a schedule 1 toxin. Once a substance has been slated as being toxic, the government can then ask a particular industry or company to provide a pollution prevention plan. This motion will not allow that. Once a toxin has been slated for fast-tracking to a schedule 1 toxin, the Reform Party wants to wait to have it approved by cabinet.
What concerns me is that the Reform Party believes that cabinet may actually say, “Well, we know this is a very harmful substance, but, gosh, maybe we should not do it anyway”. I think the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health should be able to make that call. If it is toxic, it is toxic and it requires a pollution prevention plan.
I know industry is not that concerned about that particular amendment. I would think that if we are protecting human health and the environment, then that would be the right thing to do.
Given that I do not have enough time to speak about the large number of amendments that we have, I am very pleased with the position we have taken in terms of virtual elimination, as it is a workable definition. Given that our motion will be up first, I trust that the Reform Party, the government and the Bloc, which have similar motions that accomplish the same objective, will vote for our motion as opposed to voting for another for purely partisan purposes.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 12th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 123
That Bill C-32, in Clause 95, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 69 with the following:
“regulation made under section 93 or an”
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 12th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 115
That Bill C-32 be amended by deleting Clause 92.1.
Motion No. 117
That Bill C-32, in Clause 93, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 67 the following: w .1) for the purposes of subsection 65(3), the quantity or concentration of a substance that may be released into the environment either alone or in combination with any other substance from any source or type of source;”
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 12th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 111
That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 64 with the following:
“with respect to achieving virtual elimination by implementing subsection 65(3) and sum-”
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 12th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 101
That Bill C-32, in Clause 81, be amended a ) by replacing lines 17 to 21 on page 54 with the following:
“this section, the Ministers and and the minister responsible for the Act of Parliament referred to in paragraph (6)( a ) are responsible for determining whether or not the requirements referred to in that paragraph are met by or under that other Act, or” b ) by replacing line 23 on page 54 with the following: a ) if the Ministers and that other minister determine” c ) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 54 with the following:
“regulations made under that Act, the Ministers and that other minister may by order add to” d ) by replacing line 35 on page 54 with the following: b ) if the Minister and that other minister determine” e ) by replacing, in the English version, line 39 on page 54 with the following:
“in Schedule 2, the Ministers and that other minister may”
Motion No. 108
That Bill C-32, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 63 with the following:
“Ministers is achieving virtual elimination by implementing subsection 65(3) shall specify”
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 12th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 96
That Bill C-32, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 51 with the following:
“proposed actions for achieving virtual elimination in respect of the substance by implementing subsection 65(3) in relation to the”
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 12th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-32, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 51 with the following:
“sure, as confirmed or amended, to achieve virtual elimination in respect of a substance by implementing subsection 65(3), the”