Garry Breitkreuz

[Intoxication of Migratory Birds, June 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, again it is my pleasure to speak to this very important issue.

As with many environmental issues that come before us, this issue has a lot of emotion, but the science is really lacking. I am not saying that the science will not eventually prove that there is some need for regulation in this area, but at the moment the proposed ban on lead fishing sinkers or weights is premature.

In a nutshell, I am rising today to make the point that this motion may appear all right, but it lacks the necessary background research required. All of the arguments I have heard so far have been primarily emotional. I received a letter from a key group that was never consulted and that is why I am speaking out today.

I am proposing that we wait to hear from all the stakeholders and interest groups on this issue before we vote to use the full force of the law on unsuspecting parents out on the dock teaching their kids how to catch their first fish. In fact, this is exactly the approach recommended by the Minister of the Environment in his July 27, 2000 letter to the World Wildlife Fund which stated:

I am also concerned that acting too soon on the regulatory front could compromise the building of the broad alliance needed to make early and meaningful progress on this issue.

Let us listen carefully to that advice. The minister used his letter to outline the following action plan to address the issue.

First would be to ensure the report on the scientific assessment of the impact of lead sinkers and jigs ingested by wildlife has undergone a peer review.

Second would be to initiate a communications effort to build awareness of the issue to encourage voluntary use of environmentally friendly sinkers and jigs.

Third would be to develop a communications theme and some initial products to be used in building a broad coalition of agencies, organizations and companies that could implement a sweeping comprehensive communications and awareness program.

Fourth, at the end of a reasonable period, stakeholders would be well positioned to assess the effectiveness of the voluntary approach if we pulled together a coalition of federal, provincial and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations, manufacturers and retailers that would implement the national campaign.

Sixth would be to implement the necessary interdepartmental, intergovernmental and stakeholder consultations.

It is clear the minister's action plan which he outlined two years ago has still not been fully implemented. In fact, just yesterday the Canadian Wildlife Service said the new scientific study and peer review on lead sinkers and jigs will not be published until December of this year.

I was pleased to also read the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment in Hansard on April 29, 2002. She once again expressed the government's commitment to this logical step by step plan before proceeding with any legislative measure.

She explained that the government's plan would include getting a clear understanding of the impact of lead fishing gear on wildlife and consulting to engender the support of stakeholders and other government agencies that would be partners in any attempts to reduce the input of lead fishing gear into the environment. Scientific understanding would be used as the basis of the government's actions. The science review currently under way would be completed.

It would include developing the support of anglers who use lead sinkers and jigs and consult with them on the effectiveness of non-lead sinkers and jigs. It would include developing the support of manufacturers, distributors and retailers who make lead sinkers and jigs available. It would ensure the federal government had the support of the provinces and territories which manage recreational fishing, to ensure that any actions, including the potential use of non-voluntary control on fishing gear would be enforceable.

Consultations would be completed to ensure that whatever action the government took was supported by the Canadian public. Lastly, it would expand the government's public awareness efforts including working with government and non-government agencies to effectively and efficiently get information to anglers.

Let us heed all of those points of advice.

I find myself in the very odd position of supporting the government, a rare occurrence in the eight years that I have been here. I only wish the government had taken such a logical approach when it proceeded with its ill fated gun registry.

Before I finish, I would like to point out that the Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association also supports the government's consultative and co-operative approach to develop effective solutions to this problem.

Recreational fishing in Canada is a $7 billion annual economy, employing over 40,000 people. Over eight million Canadians fish and recreational fishing is a major component of Canada's tourism economy for residents and visitors alike. No wonder the government is making such a deliberate effort to find the right solution.

One of the main reasons for my speaking today is to let people know how little science is behind this motion. I received a letter from Mr. Phil Morlock, the chairman of this association's legislative committee. He wrote:

It is the position of the Canadian sportfishing industry that any fish and wildlife policy or legislation should be based on credible scientific research that meets accepted North American research standards, including an independent peer review. Much of the research information being circulated and quoted in Canada regarding lead fishing tackle and its impact on loons and waterfowl does not meet these standards.

As such, fish and wildlife professionals do not agree that a waterfowl mortality problem with lead fishing tackle even exists. There are strong indications that waterfowl rarely encounter fishing sinkers or baits of any kind. The State of Illinois Department of Natural Resources conducted extensive research on the presence of toxic and non-toxic shotgun pellets in waterfowl in the Mississippi Flyway. The study involved thirteen states and 93 sample areas in 1996-97.

Of 16,651 ducks examined, only one had ingested a lead fishing sinker.

This Motion is before Parliament with the potential to negatively impact on thousands of Canadian jobs in the fishing and tourism industry--yet [the hon. member moving this motion] never bothered to speak to a representative of the recreational fishing industry--the people most affected. The economic impact of her motion in Quebec will be severe, especially in rural areas. So too across Canada.

In fact, the sport fishing industry has never been contacted by any agency of the federal government, including Environment Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service, to discuss any aspects of the lead fishing tackle issue, or any proposed legislation--including this Motion.

The fishing industry is as always, willing and available to work with the federal government--and to lead on behalf of the conservation of fish and wildlife. First, there must be an inclusive discussion with the people whose livelihoods are affected, and who have relevant information to contribute. If legislation is appropriate, it should be the result of a consultation process that includes the facts from those with the most relevant information--clearly this has not happened in this case. An entire industry has been left out of the process.

It is the position of the Canadian Sportfishing Industry that this Motion is ill conceived, too broadly worded and essentially unnecessary. The fishing industry would recommend that Parliament vote against this Motion.

That is a very long quotation from the letter but I needed to read that into the record. Parliamentarians need to consider the facts. A large group of people could be greatly affected by this and they have not even been consulted. There is no need to rush this through at this point. We have to do the proper research. We can act with emotion, and I have heard it today, but we also have to act reasonably and with sound science.

Consequently, until the government's plan has been completely implemented and the results are made available to parliamentarians, I cannot support the motion.

[Privilege, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Finance with contempt for his failure to comply with the legislative requirement compelling him to table a report from the chief actuary in compliance with section 115 of the CPP Act.

Subsection 115(2) of the CPP Act says:

--the Chief Actuary shall, whenever any Bill is introduced in or presented to the House of Commons to amend this Act in a manner that would in the opinion of the Chief Actuary materially affect any of the estimates contained in the most recent report under this section made by the Chief Actuary, prepare, using the same actuarial assumptions and basis as were used in that report, a report setting forth the extent to which such Bill would, if enacted by Parliament, materially affect any of the estimates contained in that report.

On June 6 the government introduced Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada pension plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. The speaking notes given out by the government indicate that this will change the earnings of the fund by $75 billion. This is a material effect on the fund and must be accompanied by a full report of the chief actuary.

Moreover, the report must be laid before the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance forthwith. That is subsection 115(8), which states:

Forthwith on the completion of any report under this section, the Chief Actuary shall transmit the report to the Minister of Finance, who shall cause the report to be laid before the House of Commons forthwith on its receipt if Parliament is then sitting, or if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first five days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, and if at the time any report under this section is received by the Minister of Finance Parliament is then dissolved, the Minister of Finance shall forthwith cause a copy of the report to be published in the Canada Gazette. (Section 115(8).

The chief actuary has completed his report. The speaking notes from the department read:

The transfer is expected to improve the investment performance of the CPP. The Chief Actuary of Canada estimates that the change will increase CPP assets by about $75 billion over 50 years.

The last time a bill was introduced in the House making changes to the CPP Act, the chief actuary had his report prepared one day before the bill was introduced in parliament. Bill C-2 was introduced on September 25, 1997, and I have a copy of a letter sent to the minister from the chief actuary dated September 24, 1997, one day before the bill was tabled indicating that:

In compliance with subsection 115(2) of the Canada Pension Plan Act, which provides that a periodic actuarial report shall be prepared whenever a Bill is introduced in the House of Commons to amend the CPP, I am pleased to transmit the sixteenth actuarial report on the Canada Pension Plan.

I will table both of these documents with you, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, our chief actuary is on the ball and respects parliament and follows the law. The fault does not lie with the chief actuary but with the Minister of Finance. The report regarding Bill C-58 is obviously finished and should have been tabled.

Members of the House cannot evaluate the impact of these changes properly without a report. For example, an extra $75 billion may allow the 9.9% rate to fall. On the other hand it could be that the CPP would be unsustainable without this act and that this act was assumed in the preparation of the last, that is the 18th, report. Parliamentarians need to know this.

In 1993 the Speaker ruled on a similar question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River. The issue at that time concerned the failure of the Minister of Finance to table an order made under the customs act as it was his statutory duty to do. The member for Scarborough--Rouge River stated that he entertained no doubt that:

...the minister's failure to table a document required to be tabled by this House, whether intentional or accidental, tends to diminish the authority of the House of Commons and is something that might reasonably be held to constitute contempt by this House

Speaker Fraser ruled on April 19, 1993, that a prima facie case of breach of privilege had been made and allowed the member to move a motion referring the matter to the standing committee on House management. In his ruling Speaker Fraser reiterated that:

The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected. Members cannot function if they do not have access to the material they need for their work and if our rules are being ignored and even statutory instruments are being disregarded.

The Speaker also agreed that disregard of a legislative command, even if unintentional, was an affront to the authority and dignity of parliament as a whole and the House in particular.

On November 21, 2001, the Speaker delivered a ruling in regard to a complaint by the member for Surrey Central who cited 16 examples of where the government failed to comply with the legislative requirements concerning the tabling of certain information in parliament. In all 16 cases raised on November 21 a report deadline was absent from the legislation. As a result the Speaker could not find a prima facie question of privilege. However the Speaker said in his ruling at page 7381 of Hansard :

Were there to be a deadline for tabling included in the legislation, I would not hesitate to find that a prima facie case of contempt does exist and I would invite the hon. member to move the usual motion.

The reporting date in section 115 of the CPP Act is “forthwith”. The term forthwith is used all through our standing orders, Mr. Speaker, and I have watched you comply with such orders. When our standing orders instruct us to put a question to the House forthwith, that is exactly what we do. We do it right away without delay. We do not do it the next day or a week later.

By breaching a statutory requirement to table the chief actuary's report in the House the Minister of Finance is in contempt of the House. I am prepared to move a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would also request that Bill C-58 not be allowed to proceed until a report of the chief actuary has been tabled. This is more of a point of order and ask that you rule on that related matter as well.

[Firearms Registration, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, access to information documents show that the justice minister has already privatized the gun registry and has spent more than $17.6 million in the process.

Documents show that BDP Business Data Services Limited has been processing firearms licences for two years and gun registrations for at least the last six months. This despite the fact that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has still not completed his investigation into the privacy implications of the government's privatization plans for the Canadian firearms program.

The justice minister said privatization would improve services, but since BDP became involved in July of 2000 the number of firearms licences issued with the wrong photograph increased from zero in 1999 to hundreds in the last two years, a dramatic increase.

What happened to the justice minister's claims that the gun registry was working well and his promise of offering very good services through privatization? That is certainly not happening.

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey Central for the opportunity to speak today in support of his private member's bill, Bill C-202.

Before getting into my remarks, I thank the hon. member for all the diligent work on the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations that he has done. Much of that work is not visible to the public. While it is a committee that works in relative obscurity, it is important work indeed. It takes a dedicated parliamentarian to do this important work without the publicity or recognition that it deserves. For his dedication to democracy, I wish to compliment him. The constituents in Surrey Central should be proud of the work that their member of parliament is doing in the House of Commons for their benefit and the benefit of all Canadians.

I have been in the House for almost nine years. The experience has caused me to question the effectiveness of democracy and how it operates in Canada. I will speak a lot from my experience in the House.

For those Canadians watching on television, I want to outline what we are doing here and simplify the debate. Day by day we debate all the laws in Canada by which Canadians need to live. We continually try to fine-tune through our debate and analysis of bills the laws that are passed here and to which all Canadians must adhere in their day to day lives.

Legislation passed by the Liberal government is mostly enabling legislation. By that I mean the laws enable the government through regulation to determine the details of the legislation by which we all have to live.

The key point to be made, and that is what we are discussing, is that much less scrutiny is given to the regulations in the House. That is an extremely serious flaw in the legislative process. However we do have a committee that deals with that.

It is often said when we are talking about a contract or agreement that the devil is in the details. The regulations are the nuts and bolts and determine how the legislation will affect the daily lives of Canadians. We need to strengthen that part of the process. Bill C-202 is an important step in that direction. Canadians are greatly affected by regulations. We can liken it to the fine print in a contract.

To give Canadians an idea of how much work the standing joint committee is required to do, I dug out some statistics that were prepared for me last year by the research branch of the Library of Parliament. In just seven years, between 1994 and 2000, the Liberal government introduced 4,931 individual statutory instruments and statutory order regulations. That is 23,566 pages of federal regulations. The sheer volume of the work before the standing joint committee is overwhelming. We should not make its job more difficult when it identifies a regulation that does not comply with the laws passed by parliament. That is important.

It might be embarrassing for the minister and the government when the standing joint committee discovers that they did not follow the government's own laws but we should not tie the committee's hands when it wants to correct these regulatory errors.

It is clear to almost everyone that the disallowance procedure for statutory instruments should be part of the legislation. That is the oversight Bill C-202 attempts to correct.

As it stands now, if the standing joint committee identifies a regulation that does not comply with the laws passed by parliament, it issues a report to both the House of Commons and the Senate to disallow the specific regulations that were made in error. However under the disallowance procedure followed now, it is left completely to the discretion of the minister of the crown or the governor in council, which is really just a council of ministers, to revoke, amend or ignore the regulations identified in the report of the standing joint committee. Even the courts are unable to do anything about a regulation that is subject to a disallowance report.

Bill C-202 will fix those obvious defects. The purpose of the bill is to bring the Statutory Instruments Act into the 21st century.

This bill will give the disallowance procedure a firm legal footing. In the process it will strengthen our democratic processes and thereby be of great service to all Canadians. Once a law is passed by parliament giving the government the power to make regulations, it is vital to our democracy that these regulations be in full compliance with the law.

I will not have the opportunity to finish my remarks but I will conclude by saying that I have had a lot of personal experience and I feel that we do not realize how important this change is to the parliamentary process. We really cannot fix the flaws that thwart the democratic process. This is private members' business and I appeal to all people to pay close attention to it. All backbench MPs should carefully look at this bill because it will improve the legislation in the House. I hope I can conclude my remarks at some other time.

[Species at Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate there is closure on the amount of time because there is a great deal more that I would like to say.

I want to make one observation right off the bat. The member for Davenport chastised us for not speaking up on the committee or doing this through the committee but he did not say anything when a Liberal member did it.

I would like to pose a question for the member and then make some comments.

One thing that needs to be put in legislation which is very questionable when it goes through the House is a clause that mandates a review of the legislation after a certain period of time, such as five years. It is known as a sunset clause or a clause that would create an automatic review by an unbiased agency or committee of the House to check to see whether the legislation is actually working. Why did the Liberal government not put one in? Would the member support that kind of thing?

We have to realize that once we pass legislation in the House, it is there forever. We have made many suggestions which have fallen on deaf ears.

The member for Peterborough wanted an example of where proper compensation was not made. I am completely familiar with the Firearms Act and it was not provided for in a proper way in that act.

Today many people are being deprived of their property. Because we do not have property rights in this country, we must have compensation mandated in the bill. Because it is not in there and it is left to the regulations, anything could happen. We need to have some kind of a revision after five years.

Many people in Canada do not realize that another problem with leaving it to the regulations is that we do not have an effective scrutiny of regulations system in the House of Commons. It flies in the face of democracy that the committee that reviews these and says they are not appropriate has no power to enforce the fact that regulations are not effective. That is the reason we have to get the bill right before it goes through the House. We do not have an effective scrutiny of the regulations in the House. I only became aware of that after a few years of experience in this place.

Compensation is not ensured. That is a serious problem which has been raised in western Canada. It may not be raised in Ontario but it is raised in western Canada all the time.

The other issue which the member for Davenport talks about is the creation of mistrust. What creates mistrust is the fact that in the bill there is what is called mens rea. People may be violating the law or have an endangered species on the land and are not aware of it and there is no obligation to make them aware of it. That is totally unacceptable but the government is letting that go through. That creates mistrust and it is a huge problem.

Bill C-15B passed and now that the bill has passed, we realize we did not get it right. The medical community is already concerned with what we have done in the House.

Is there a mandatory review mechanism in the bill? No. Why not? That should be mandated in every bill.

Would the member opposite support that kind of amendment being made before we go any further? It is critical that we get it right in the House before we let this legislation go. If we do not, we ought to stop it right here. That is what I am suggesting.

We are all in favour of protecting species but the way the bill sits, it is going to have the opposite effect.

[Ethics, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, ethics are so simple when one knows the difference between right and wrong.

No matter how many volumes of rules the Prime Minister writes, they will not make the Liberal government more ethical, honest or transparent.

Only the Prime Minister needs ethical guidelines to remind him not to call the heads of crown corporations about loans to companies in which he may still have a financial interest.

Only his previous public works ministers need ethical guidelines to remind them that it was wrong to provide millions of dollars in contracts to friends of the Liberal Party or that it was wrong to stay in the president's chalet.

Only the solicitor general needs ethical guidelines to remind him that he should not tell the commissioner of the RCMP to revisit a decision he had made months previous about funding for a college headed by his brother.

Canadians do not need new ethical guidelines for their government in Ottawa. We just need a government that knows the difference between right and wrong.

[Agriculture, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, next week five farmers will go on trial in Lethbridge, Alberta for exporting their own grain into the United States. The sad and hypocritical fact is that if they had lived in Ontario or Quebec they would not have broken any laws. On March 4 a National Post editorial titled “Prairie Injustice” pointed out the real problem:

It is unconscionable that farmers may not legally sell the fruits of their labour to whomever they please--

The Liberal government simply overrides fundamental property rights whenever it suits its agenda and fails to understand the concept of freedom of contract.

Here is another outrageous example: Organic farmers in the prairies are forced to sell their grain to the wheat board and buy it back before they can sell it to their customers. This, despite the fact that the board does not even market organic grains. Bill and Myrita Rees in my riding estimate the cost to them on a 1,000 bushel load of grain is $2,800.

When is this government going to start treating prairie farmers just like other Canadian farmers?

[Question No. 151, June 6th, 2002]

Does the government have any statistics or research about the death rate after a pregnancy, and if so, what is, in the 12 months after the end of a pregnancy, the total death rate by women having an elective abortion compared to women carrying their baby to term?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, they are errors that have not been corrected. I will take one of the alleged facts that has been used here and that is the 99% success rate with regard to the addresses.

As of February 21 of this year, the department reported it had mailed out 1,625,915 envelopes to licensed firearm owners as part of its free registration program. However we also found out that 38,629 of those envelopes had been returned to sender by Canada Post Corporation. So much for the claim that 99% of the licensed firearms owners are living at the right address. They have lost track of these owners despite the fact that there is a penalty of years in jail if within one month they do not--

[Canada Post Corporation Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, on May 2 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice gave a most unsatisfactory answer to a direct question. The RCMP has provided reports documenting hundreds of thousands of errors in the gun registry. I again ask my question. How can a garbage collection system like the minister is running be of any benefit to the police?

Last week the parliament secretary contradicted the documented evidence from his own department and the RCMP by claiming that 99% of all firearms were correctly registered and 99% of firearms licences correctly issued.

On May 22 the justice department, in response to one of my access to information requests on error rates in the gun registry, stated:

The error rate for applications received up to July 18, 2001, was 90% of a total of 362,375. In addition to errors detailed in Appendix A, 42% of firearms registration applications contain errors in the firearms description, in comparison to the Firearms Reference Table...The sum of the errors exceeds the number of applications received because the application is only counted once even though it may contain multiple errors.

On April 9, 2002, in response to our access to information request, the RCMP provided the cold, hard statistics used to calculate the justice department's 90% plus 42% error rate in firearms applications. As of July 18, 2001, the RCMP's Canadian firearms registry had received 362,375 firearms registration applications. The RCMP provided a two page document listing 60 different types of errors. Amazingly this RCMP document records a total of 970,647 errors.

Here are some of the more common firearms application errors the RCMP documents: 226,024 applications required the firearms owner's licence numbers; 88,886 applications were awaiting payment while the funds for 23,211 applications were not acceptable; 48,282 applications did not have the firearms make, while for another 40,528, the make was invalid; 79,456 had an invalid model description; 71,539 required a client match; 59,640 had address errors; 56,374 required the calibre for the firearm; 34,830 did not have the number of shots; 18,434 did not have a serial number; 16,313 did not have the barrel length; and 20,978 had not been signed.

The minister and the parliamentary secretary would have us believe that in the 11 months they have fixed almost a million errors in these 362,000 applications and have stopped clients from making similar errors on the other 3.4 million firearms applications they received since. In another 11 months, through another access to information request, as has been happening continually over the last six or seven years, we will find that is not true. The minister's claims stretch--