Rick Casson

[Petitions, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from concerned citizens in my riding of Lethbridge.

Decisions by the Supreme Court as well as recent pieces of federal legislation have placed extreme stress on the traditional definition of the family. The petitioners believe that the traditional family is the building block of society and call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

The petition contains the names of 134 residents which brings the total number of names that I have received on this issue to 1,483, which I understand is about 8% of the total received by the government. I hope the government takes this into consideration.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak again to another set of amendments on Bill C-32. We talked a bit this morning about Group No. 2 and we are now on Group No 3. The list is quite a bit shorter than the one we talked about this morning, but there are some very important issues in this grouping. Some of the amendments in this grouping could effectively change the bill and its effectiveness. I will just go through some of these.

These two groups of amendments deal basically with the use of toxic substances and the residual powers of the federal government.

I would like to speak first to the use of toxic substances and the amendments put forward by my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni. This amendment, which, as stated earlier, is supported by the minister, would return the original wording back to the preamble.

The preamble to this new CEPA begins with outlining the commitment that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canada, while acknowledging that the primary purpose of this bill is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention. That pretty well sums up the bill in its entirety and takes into account the health and the continuation of sustainable development, things that are so important without which we would have little else.

The preamble contains 14 separate commitments and goals of the government. Three of these commitments or goals would be reworded versions of four of the six statements found in the preamble of the current act, while the remaining goals and commitments would deal with the new concepts and priorities such as: first, the goal of achieving sustainable development and an acknowledgement of the need to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in all decisions by the government and private sector. That issue is one on which we seem to differ from party to party in the House as to what weight we should place on each one of them.

I personally feel that if we leave out the economic and social factors, then we are leaving out an important fact. If we do not have any economic or social factors to look at, then some of the pressure that would be brought to bear on individuals to act is not there. When some people fight to have economic and social factors taken out of the equation, they are actually working against a healthy environment.

Second, a commitment to implementing pollution prevention as a natural goal and as the priority approach to environmental protection.

Third, a recognition of the importance of an ecosystem approach.

Fourth, a commitment to implementing the precautionary principle as defined by the universally accepted Rio definition. It is very important that the definition that is being used is the one being used universally in the world. We heard some comments earlier that is a flexible definition to be decided on by each country, but we must be very careful that we stay close to what the rest of the world is doing.

Fifth, a recognition of the responsibility of users and producers with respect to toxic substances, pollutants and wastes, and the adoption of the polluter pays principle.

Sixth, a recognition that all levels of government have authority to protect the environment and that they face environmental problems that can benefit from co-operative resolution. Once again we mention co-operation instead of confrontation and the proper balance between the governing authorities.

Seventh, a recognition that science and traditional aboriginal knowledge has an integral role in the environmental and human health decision making process and that environmental or health risks and social, economic and technical matters are to be considered in that process. My hon. friend from Churchill River talked at length about this in committee and certainly brought this issue to light. The fact that it is here, we should give him some credit for that.

Last, an endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention and the control and management of toxic substances.

Because of amendments made in committee, some of the original intentions have been changed. When the bill was first proposed, out of the 560 amendments that came forward, our party chose to put forward 22. That indicated that we were basically pleased with the balance that had been struck by the original Bill C-32. We felt that some of the amendments that took place after altered considerably the original intention of the bill.

Most of the amendments made were fairly agreeable and did not go against the spirit of the bill. However, the amendment to the last commitment of the government has the potential to significantly alter the government's focus. Until now, the government's focus has consistently been on managing the release of toxic substances, not how they were used. That is what the bill should do.

There is a list of some 23,000 substances used by Canadian industry and manufacturing. The use of these substances to create something is one thing, but we have to ensure that they are not released into the atmosphere to harm the environment. As long as their use is not doing that, we should not be too focused on managing or restricting the use of these substances.

This focus is shared by much of the international community and for good reason. Monitoring the use of all substances would be such a monumental task that the department would be overwhelmed by these new demands. As it stands right now, the department cannot even enforce many of its own rules as they exist today.

In committee we heard evidence that enforcement is sorely lacking in this country. It would be irresponsible for parliament to impose an additional burden such as this. It is not the use of toxic substances that is cause for public concern and government attention but their improper management and releases causing adverse effects.

The government's responsibility to monitor releases should be maintained by returning the original wording of the bill. That is what our amendment would do. To consider use separately from release derogates from the risk based principles that are intended to be the foundation of the bill.

The last motions I want to speak to are Motions Nos. 138 and 149 which deal with the residual powers of the federal government, a subject debated at length at the environment committee on almost all issues.

These motions which were first introduced by the true champions of the people, the Reform Party, are nearly identical to the ones introduced by the government. I want to thank the minister and her government for backing up what the Reform Party says, and I want to assure her that any time she needs some more advice on this bill we would be happy to help.

Motion No. 138 amends clause 106, section 7 by requiring that the opinion of the governor in council first be sought before any decisions are made. That would bring in the other ministries because this bill affects everybody in Canada and around the world. When decisions are made that affect a wide scope, the other responsible areas of the ministers should be considered.

Environmental decisions affect everybody from farmers and ranchers to health officials. Because these decisions have such far-reaching implications, it is important that all perspectives are properly heard. Bringing these matters to the cabinet table will ensure that all the affected stakeholders will have an opportunity to make their views known and influence the decision making process.

Motion No. 149 amends clause 115, which is actually the second part of a two clause cluster that deals with regulations. The preceding clause, clause 114, would empower the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister responsible to make regulations relating to living organisms.

These regulations covered a variety of different categories ranging from organisms for research to organisms for export. Section 115 would further empower the governor in council, once again on the recommendation of the ministers of health and environment, to make regulations for implementing an international agreement respecting living organisms and respecting their effective and safe use in pollution prevention.

The second clause of section 115, the section to which Reform has proposed an amendment, would prevent the governor in council from making such regulations where the same aspect of any living organism was regulated by or under any other act of parliament.

The issue comes back again to broadening out the base of decision making and bringing into play the other ministries involved. It considers the scope of the bill to deal with the control of substances so they cannot be released. It does not deal with their abolition or if they are being handled properly.

These amendments are important and we feel that they alone can change the entire scope of the bill.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-32 and this group of amendments following the comments by the member for Davenport. He indicated how unhappy he is with the bill and that he will even be voting against his own government.

The process we have gone through to date has been a very lengthy one. Many members have commented on that. This group of amendments has almost 70 amendments with 16 of the amendments coming from the government. We have had 59 meetings on this bill. The bill was at committee for a year. A total of 560 amendments have come forward on this bill. Even at report stage when it comes back to the House the government is still making amendments. It makes us wonder how much effort went into the original drafting of the bill if at this point in the process we are still dealing with government amendments and members of the government are still unhappy with it.

There are two main issues being dealt with in these amendments. Most of the amendments were brought forward by the member for Jonquière who spoke previously and deal with provincial sovereignty. It is not surprising since she is a member of a separatist party.

The other issue is the environment minister is dealing with the time period during which the minister offers to consult with affected stakeholders. This was something we dealt with at committee to some degree, to put some time limitations on some of the decisions so that the actions can move forward in a reasonable manner, and that people involved have a chance to be consulted and work together.

The issue of provincial sovereignty is of course a dear one to Reformers and to our party. In many ways the Reform Party can find its roots in this issue. The party began in the late 1980s born out of frustration with Ottawa. Canadians frustrated with being ignored by the federal government decided that the time was right to start a party that was dedicated to the equality of all provinces, a party that would favour no province over the other.

One of the founding principles of the party affirmed Reform's commitment to Canada as one nation indivisible, and to our vision of Canada as a balanced federation of equal provinces and citizens. The balance we speak of even at that level we have to extend to environmental issues because it is a very precise balance that needs to be created between government regulation, industry and Canadians. If we go too hard one way or the other, that balance is disrupted and it will harm the environment. It is key that we continue to seek the balance we need to create a better environment for all of us.

This balanced federation would take away the arsenal of centralizing powers that lie in the hands of the cabinet and redistribute legislative authority to the level of government that is able to govern most effectively in each area. We feel the federal government has become too intrusive in provincial affairs. The long arm of the federal government stretches across the country and leaves no citizen untouched.

Federal transfer cuts to health and education programs drastically affect Canadians all across the country. Outrageous tax rates discriminate against single income families and they chase away our best and brightest graduates and drive down our productivity. If that is not enough, projects like the millennium scholarship fund even further antagonize the provinces. It is things like this that have earned Ottawa the enmity of the provinces.

The Bloc is a fruit of that situation. That political party from Quebec has made it known that it favours the outright decentralization of nearly every federal responsibility. The Bloc opposes any kind of federal government intervention in the provinces. Having said that, we support decentralizing government as well but we believe that the amendments presented here today go too far.

We recognize that in a country as vast and diverse as Canada there is a need for the federal government to establish and maintain national standards in areas of clear federal jurisdiction. Our blue book says that the Reform Party supports a rationalization of federal and provincial environmental laws and the development of regional and national environmental standards where appropriate.

We believe that the federal government has a role to play in these issues. Because the Constitution does not explicitly assign environmental jurisdiction to either federal or provincial governments, this has been a source of friction in the past. However recent developments have gone a long way in clarifying this constitutional vagueness.

In the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v Hydro Quebec, the court ruled unanimously that the protection of the environment was a constitutionally valid criminal law objective which is a clear jurisdiction of the federal government. However, because environmental issues transcend boundaries, the federal government must not use this decision as a carte blanche to ride roughshod over the provinces.

Federal-provincial co-operation such as the kind proposed under the 1998 harmonization accord is essential to ensure that the health and well-being of Canadians come first. Again it comes down to balance, balancing the harmonization accord. In order for it to work there has to be proper balance between the federal and provincial governments.

The Reform Party is an enthusiastic supporter of provincial consultation, but the amendments put forward by the Bloc go beyond what is reasonable. The Bloc no doubt believes that the federal government is overstepping its jurisdictional boundaries in the administration and application of the bill. Requiring the minister to obtain the consent of the provinces at every turn will render the bill unworkable. We feel it has gone too far and we need to get back to a point where consultation with the provinces is meaningful and there will be some clear results.

It is clear that the provinces must be involved in the process as Environment Canada simply does not have the capability to take full responsibility for the implementation of the act. This is something that came forward during the debate. Environment Canada has fallen down substantially and has not directed the proper resources to enforcement. This is something that needs to be addressed and put back into its priorities. That has been the situation this week in the cause for environmental protection.

Some members on the other side are always eagerly ready to accuse me and my colleagues within the Reform Party of having no regard for the well-being of the environment. This is simply not true.

These are the same members who supported the cutbacks in the past few budgets presented by the finance minister. These members have supported the budgets in which these cutbacks were implemented.

Are they not supporting the government that was condemned by the environment commissioner just this week for putting the health of Canadians at risk by not properly managing toxic substances? Are they not supporting the government that has refused to introduce endangered species legislation?

I could continue, but suffice to say it is not the Reform Party these members should be concerned about but the Liberal Party. As was expressed previously by another member, their problem lies within their own party.

I assure the House that Reform has a very clear position on the enforcement of environmental protection. Our blue book policy clearly supports the principle that the polluter should pay for its pollution controls, that this be stringently enforced in an unbiased manner, and that the penalties be severe enough so polluters will not consider them a licence to pollute. We also support fines and jail sentences for officers and executives of companies that violate environmental laws.

However it is always better to use the carrot over the stick. Although the law must have the capacity to enforce its regulations, it will be more effective if it can deter individuals from breaking the law in the first place. Co-operation will always accomplish more than confrontation.

I will briefly discuss the Group No. 2 amendments brought forward by the minister. In the preamble to Bill C-32 the government recognizes the importance of working together with the provinces, territories and aboriginal groups to achieve the highest level of environmental quality for all Canadians and ultimately to contribute to sustainable development.

Throughout the bill the federal government shows its respect for the provinces, territories and aboriginal groups by making offers to consult. The bill creates advisory committees made up of representatives from these affected groups.

We as a party put forward one amendment. The representatives of the provinces instead of being picked by the minister should be appointed by the provinces. We feel that would give a balance to the process and bring in some more expertise to handle the issue.

Public consultation is critical to the legitimacy of the bill. Our party is founded on the principle of grassroots participation. Ensuring the grassroots have an opportunity to influence public policy is very important. For too long grassroots have been trampled as one government after another ignored their concerns. The bill hinges on the proper balance.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the environment committee. I will put up the number of hours I was in committee in the last year against that member's any time. I am here to represent the constituents of Lethbridge. When they come to me with a problem with this bill, I come to the House to debate it.

If I was not at that committee, that is too bad because I was at another committee doing my job there. When the environment bill, the CEPA bill, comes into the House, if that member wants to stick around and learn something about the environment, we will enlighten him too.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elk Island for his question.

The crux of the issue on this bill and on many other bills that we have dealt with in the House is the limit on debate. When the present government members were in opposition at any time the sitting government brought in closure they screamed bloody murder and rightfully so. It is a breach of the trust that Canadians have in this House.

The last time I rose to speak on this bill closure had been voted on that day. A number of people come to the gallery, come to see this place as the seat of democracy and the seat of government in the country. For them to realize what was going on here, we were being muzzled as their representatives in a democracy. We were being limited in the amount of time that we had to debate this bill. I think that is atrocious. It seems that every report that comes from a committee gets leaked before it is reported to the House. So many things go on that some days we wonder about the relevance of this place. We have to keep pinching ourselves to make sure that what we are seeing is real.

We have to have the support and the backing of our constituents. To have the government bring in closure time after time stifles us so that we cannot perform our job in the proper way. I find it very objectionable as I am sure do many others in the House.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak again to Bill C-78.

One of the issues we have to address before we talk about the bill is the fact that closure has been moved and the debate has been limited. When we look at some of the reasons the government would want to do that, we see that in its backbenches there is a bit of a revolt going on with a number of its members saying that this bill is flawed. They do not like it and they are not going to support it.

The government also does this to keep things moving along quickly, so the people across Canada do not have the chance to respond to their members of parliament and so we do not have a chance to fully debate the bill in the House.

I think the government also does this to keep some of its own members from gathering momentum to oppose this. It seems that the Prime Minister is going to bring out the big stick and make sure this bill is supported by all members over there. It should be interesting later on when we vote on this.

We heard earlier that there is nothing to worry about and that the money will be there. The money is there now. Why do we not just leave it there? There is a $30 billion surplus in this account and it is to no credit of the government that it has accrued. Anytime the government sees a lump of money, it wants to grab it.

The indication is that this is going to pay the debt, but actually this law is so vague and silent on this that the surplus can be used by the President of the Treasury Board to do whatever he wishes. The government is saying it could go to pay the debt, but it could go anywhere. Canadians have the right to know where it is going to go and to what benefit to them.

We have seen huge increases in CPP premiums. They are going to go up a total of 73% over the next number of years. That still will not solidify the plan. There is a good possibility that premiums will be reduced or the age limit will be raised. Besides that, we have seen the government take the $26 million surplus in the employment insurance fund.

It seems that every time we see a couple of dollars stuck together here, and I realize that $26 billion and $30 billion are huge amounts of money, the government wants to get it and put it somewhere. I am not sure where it is putting it, but closer to the next election I imagine we will find out where it has gone.

This bill allows the government to seize the public service fund surplus. The three funds affected are the public service plan, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police plan and the Canadian forces plan.

That $30 billion has built up over the years for a number of reasons. There is the fact that inflation has been low. The actuaries projected that inflation would rise and the contributions would go up and that has not happened. There are three critical areas. Salary increases have been kept low, interest rates on investments have been good and inflation is low.

Frozen wages for six or seven years, whatever it was, is another thing. Public servants had their wages frozen. They finally got a little bit of an increase and the government came right back and said, “Okay, there is $30 billion in your pension fund and we want to get our hands on it”. This money belongs to the workers. It should stay where the workers can rely on it.

There have been shortfalls in the past. There could be shortfalls again. If this money is not there to pick up the slack, then back we go to another tax to pay for it. That is what this has turned into. They have not been pension contributions. They have not been EI premiums. If the government can take that money without using it for the purpose it was intended originally, then it is not a contribution or premium. It is a tax and it should be called that. The government forgets that this money belongs to the taxpayers and the employees.

We got into quite a debate a minute ago with a government member talking about conjugal relationships. The definition of that is one of the issues that has really caused some concern among members of our party and all parties.

The courts in the last little while have been creating laws. That is our job. That is why people voted for us. That is why we are here, to legislate. When the courts can take that away from us, when nine appointed judges of the supreme court can start making laws, then this country has a serious problem and one that needs to be addressed.

Why would we leave a clause or a word in the bill that is going to cause concern and that is going to have to go to lawyers and courts to be defined? The member for Calgary Centre put forward an amendment to this bill to take that word out and it was defeated by the government. The member stated that he has a problem with that word and if it was not there the bill would be better. Why did the government not support the amendment when it was put forward?

In this new bill survivors benefits have been expanded to beneficiaries. The thing that really puzzles me and many in this country is how we are going to decide if a relationship is conjugal. If the decision is left to the courts, the whole issue will be gone over again and again until everybody is somewhat confused as to what the issue is.

The whole idea of this expanding into relationships of a conjugal nature throws a whole different slant on the bill which does not need to be there. As members from all sides have said, we would have another look at this if that was not in there. It is there and this will eventually end up back in the courts where another decision will be made by the appointed judges. This is where the problem exists. We as legislators are not allowed to make the laws but instead it is the judges.

The people who came to see me from my riding who belong to this pension plan are very concerned. There was some representation from each of the affected funds. These people who are drawing from the pension wanted time to get together to talk to other members from across the country because they are concerned. They do not have the time because of the haste with which the government wants to move this bill through so it can get its hands on the money.

That concern should not be there. People who belong to this pension should feel very secure. They should be able to raise the questions that need to be raised so we can relate to them what the issues are and that they do not need to worry, but we do not have that time.

I believe that if a pension plan has built up a surplus of $30 billion we would have some degree of comfort if things changed, if there was a downturn in the economy, if something happened that the outgoing funds were higher than the incoming, we would have a bit of a surplus. That is gone. If money is not available to pay these people of course they are going to be worried.

If we compound the public service pension surplus being taken by the government with the concern that the CPP might not be available for people when they retire, it adds up. People have a right to feel secure in their retirement after putting money in for years.

The whole idea that the President of the Treasury Board has the authority to take this surplus and use it as he wishes is not right. The pensioners who are coming forward are very concerned with this. They have a real point that there is no accountability here. The fact that closure has been brought in on this bill and they have not had time to put forward all their concerns is not what this House is all about. That is not why we were elected by our constituents.

We oppose this bill. We feel that the money that is in the fund should remain right where it is.

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to speak in the House when you are in the chair, so I wish I could say it was a pleasure to be here today.

It is a beautiful day in Ottawa. There are people in tour buses and school buses visiting the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada, the centre of democracy in the country. Groups of school children and people from all over come here.

What are we doing? What did we do an hour ago? The government moved a motion to restrict debate on a bill as important as this one. That goes against everything that the country stands for.

It goes against some gentlemen I talked to last week in my office in Lethbridge. They would have liked more time to have input into the decision being made here today because they are part of the group of pensioners being governed by this law. They felt they were being shortchanged by not being able to have the input they wanted.

Today is the 52nd time the government has moved closure. I can remember when the Liberals were on this side of the House in opposition and how they used to rail against the government moving closure. Yet they seem to make it one of their everyday tools. As important as the bill is, one would think some time would have been given in the parliamentary timetable to debate it properly and not to bring in closure.

Bill C-78 and the amendments in Group No. 3 that we are specifically debating at this point will change how the government can deal with the pension plans of the public service, the RCMP and the Canadian forces. This huge group of people has worked very hard in support of the country in all aspects. They need to be recognized for the work they have done. They should be able to retire in some form of security. When they see a government sitting on a huge surplus and projecting huge surpluses for the next number of years reaching out to grab $30 billion surplus out of their pension fund, they get somewhat nervous, and rightfully so.

Why would a government sitting on such a huge surplus want another $30 billion? Has it told us what it will do with the money? Will it pay down the debt? Will it pay the unfunded liability in the CPP that has built up? It has not told us that. That is what makes the people who have paid into these plans all their lives and are counting on them to carry them through their golden years somewhat nervous.

The bill will give the government the right to seize the $30 billion surplus. It will establish a public sector pension investment board. That needs some looking at as well. It is yet to be seen if the House will have a say over how that board is structured and who is going to be on it, or if it is just going to be another government patronage group.

Employee premiums will increase from 30% to 40%. The employees are going to fund 40% of this plan, beginning in 2004. How does the government feel that it is entitled to the entire surplus? That needs debate. If the government was responsible or the taxpayers were responsible for the entire contribution, then fine, but they are not. The employees are contributing as well and they do not feel that the government has a right to take the entire surplus.

The motion put forward by the Reform member for St. Albert would force an act of parliament to be passed in order for changes to be made to the contribution rate of the public sector pension plan, which currently is in the hands of Treasury Board. I believe that is a very good motion. I hope it will receive support from the House because decisions that are made to deal with the pension plan should be made by the House, not by the President of the Treasury Board.

The reason for that is because of our constituents. When my constituents come to me for answers about what is going on with their pension fund, how can I respond to them if the decisions have not been made by the House but by a member of cabinet?

All of these issues need to be addressed. More and more we are seeing the purpose of the House eroded by closure and decisions being made outside the House rather than by the elected people of the country. The government member who spoke before me mentioned a definition of spouse, a definition of survivor, that was decided by the courts. More and more we are seeing the government leaning toward the courts to make the tough decisions which need to be established by law and should be established here after public debate. That comes into this whole issue.

One of the reasons people are concerned about this is, if the government balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers, why is it looking at $30 billion? What does it want it for? Why is it so eager to get its hands on it? It seems that if people pile up more than $2 in one spot the government looks for ways to grab it away.

Let us consider our health care system. We have 180,000 people who are on waiting lists for health care in the country. As a country we put $800 less per person into the health care system than our American counterparts. We definitely have developed and the government is supporting a two tier health care system that is not necessary.

Again, the government is sitting on a huge surplus and it wants another $30 billion from this pension fund. Why are some of these things not being done? The waiting time for Canadians to receive health care is increasing. The length of time to see a specialist is increasing.

This all comes back to the fact that there have been severe funding cuts to health care, while at the same time the government is sitting on a surplus. It is looking at every corner of its mandate to find pools of money that it can pull back, but not explaining to Canadians and to the House exactly what that money is going to be used for.

That is all part of the equation which boils down to the problem that we are having with Bill C-78. The whole idea of bringing issues such as these to the floor of the House to be debated is part of what we are discussing today. The government has introduced closure and members who wanted to have a chance to debate this bill will not have that chance. People who want information from this government will not receive it. Therein lies the problem.

I support the member for St. Albert who has worked so hard on all of these issues and put forward some very good amendments. I would certainly hope that members of all parties in the House would have a look at the amendments and consider the fact that the amendments we are proposing would make this bill far better than it is. They would give some accountability through this place, through elected members of parliament, to the people of Canada. If nothing else, the issue of accountability and the issue that decisions should be made here, not elsewhere, is very important.

I would like to say to the people of my riding and certainly right across Canada who are members of this pension plan and who are concerned with what is going on that they can rest assured that this party, regardless of the outcome of the vote, will keep an eye on the government and keep its feet to the fire to make sure that this pension plan is solid and will be there to help them through the rest of their lives.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be here to speak to Bill C-32 after toiling for a year in committee on the bill. It is great to have it back in the House and to have the opportunity to debate it in a public forum.

As has been mentioned by some members, it has been quite a process. The bill was first tabled in the House on March 12, 1998. We are now 14 months to the day from the time it was first read in the House. We have had witnesses from all aspects of Canadian society. We have had industry, people from the environmental groups and people speaking to us about children. We should listen to everybody in Canada because pollution prevention is everybody's job and everybody's problem.

We dealt with 400 or 500 amendments at committee and now we have 230-some more. This just goes on and on. We debated at length many aspects of pollution prevention in committee. Certain members of the committee wanted to take the bill in one direction and some wanted to take it in another. Quite frankly, we felt fairly comfortable with the bill that was presented in the first place.

It is one thing to try to take a piece of legislation to the nth degree to command and control absolutely everything, but if we do that, I believe we would lose some of the people involved in the process. The bill will limit the use of toxins in our society and in the way we do business. If we are going to alienate the people in the country who are involved in the use of those and take the bill to a point where it is not manageable or not workable, then I believe we are doing more harm to the environment than if we come up with something reasonable.

Balance is a word we have heard a lot of and will continue to hear as we debate the bill. We must have the proper balance. We cannot go too far one way and we certainly cannot go too far the other way. We have to stand back and look at what we are doing on occasion to see if there is a little bit of common sense in what is going on. Canada has to stay in tune with the rest of the world. We have to fulfil some of the international obligations that we have been part of. We also have to be a leader and, in many aspects, we can be.

Over the months that this was at committee, the hardest working person on the Hill was the whip of the Liberal Party. We had people sit and vote in committee who, quite frankly, I had never seen before. They certainly did not know the issues but they did vote. It was an interesting scenario to live through. We saw people at the committee who were talking on telephones, reading newspapers and whatnot. It was unfortunate that had to happen. Our party attended as many meetings as we could. If we look back at the record, we attended most. We were there and took part in the debate.

The Reform Party originally put forward very few amendments because we felt it was a bill that had balance, that could work, and that it was a piece of legislation that would help Canadians.

I will read a little from the preamble to bring back into focus what the bill is intended to do. The bill is an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. We can all agree with that because it does not split up sections of the environment or sections of human life. It says “the environment” in total and “human health” in total.

My colleague from Macleod, being a medical doctor, knows that human health applies to human life no matter what age or form. Some people may try to indicate that some aspects of our population are more at risk than others, but the bill addresses human health in total. Its declaration and preamble states in part:

It is hereby declared that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canadians and that the primary purpose of this act is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention.

Sustainable development is an important part of any environmental bill.

Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to achieve sustainable development that is based on an ecologically efficient use of natural, social and economic resources and acknowledges the need to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in the making of all decisions by government and private entities;

That is something we firmly believe in. We have to take into effect the social and economic aspects of any piece of legislation as it goes forward. If we make it too restrictive, then we are going to lose some of the players in the game.

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation;

We have to remember these issues as we talk about the bill, what is and is not in it and the amendments that are brought forward. It is going to take us a while to get through them all. It gets a little complex as we try to bring in a bill that has some reason and some scope.

One aspect we are dealing with in this group of motions is the use of toxic substances. The government has consistently focused on managing releases of toxic substances and not their uses. Our proposals ensure that the bill is consistent with the relevant toxic management strategies incorporated in the UNCED's Agenda 21, keeping us in step with the rest of the world. This agenda is generally pursued by the international community in its risk reduction activities.

Amendments brought forward by some of the committee members alter this approach by expanding the scope of CEPA from its current focus on emissions to the use of toxic substances. There are 23,000 substances in use; 12 have been classed as toxic. These substances are going to be used. They need to be used. It is the control and keeping them under control and stopping the release that this bill has to focus on. It is not the use that is a cause for concern; it is the improper management and the release of these substances that cause the adverse effects.

Motions Nos. 1 and 13 deal with the use of toxic substances and address these concerns. Motion No. 1 proposes that lines 19 to 21 of the preamble be returned to the original text. That would take the bill back to where it started which was something we were quite comfortable with. The government and the Bloc have proposed motions similar to Motion No. 1 which effectively accomplish the same thing. We have general support to move in the same direction.

Government Motion No. 14 only partially addresses concerns regarding the management of toxic substances. Our Motion No. 13 is preferable to Motion No. 14 which is not adequate and is only a marginal improvement. It is critical that we do not consider use of toxic substances separately from the release of toxic substances as this derogates from the risk based principles that are intended to be the foundation of this bill.

It is going to be quite interesting as we go through all of this. Motions from three different parties which are worded somewhat differently could eventually work out to be the same thing. It is important how the groupings take place.

The other issue is inherent toxicity. Amendments put forward by the Reform Party and the government also address this issue. Inherent toxicity has been left undefined in this bill as a result of the committee amendments. If inherent toxicity is left undefined, it could lead to substances being proposed for virtual elimination without their going through the traditional risk assessment. Our proposals address this.

Our Motion No. 87 ensures that substances that have been determined to be toxic by risk assessment, not by the minister, can go to virtual elimination. Motion No. 87 ensures that the decision making is scientific rather than political. Government Motion No. 88 addresses the same concern. However its amendment does not go far enough.

I will end here because we will have other opportunities to speak as we go through this process. We have eight groupings so we can speak eight times to the issue.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, yesterday we had cowboys on this side of the House and today we have horsemen on that side. I feel quite comfortable on this side with the cowboys.

I will begin by thanking some people from my riding who came to see me last Friday to discuss this bill. They are five retired gentlemen who are involved in this pension fund. They were very concerned about the speed by which this was being put through with very little debate, and that the government was using closure to force it through. They would have liked a little more time for input to their members of parliament and to ask the government to reconsider.

I am also here today representing the people of Lethbridge, home to, among others, hundreds of people who will be affected by this legislation. This legislation, Bill C-78, is nothing but a bald-faced attempt by the Liberal government to continue its tax and spend policies on the backs of Canadian workers and taxpayers.

The act has been controversial from the day it was proposed, and rightfully so. What the government is proposing to do is underhanded and displays a flagrant disregard for the hard-working men and women who have helped the federal government finally land back on its feet after nearly collapsing under the weight of years and years of unethical free spending policies of successive Tory and Liberal governments.

The government has reached new lows using all the procedural tricks in the House to push the bill through the House and through committee, showing a blatant disrespect for the democratic traditions of the House.

The bill will affect the following three pension funds: the public service pension plan; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police plan; and the Canadian Forces plan. The gentlemen who came to see me last Friday are in all three of these plans.

The bill will give the government authority to seize the $30 billion surplus that exists in these plans and establish a public service pension investment board to invest the public sector pension funds in the markets. It will increase the employees' premiums from 30% to 40%. It will sweeten benefits for employees and retirees and will allow the Canada Post Corporation to establish its own pension plan by October 1, 2000.

The government in its usual way is assuring Canadians and pensioners that this is a much better method of safeguarding their money because, after all, if we cannot trust our government who can we trust.

It sounds very sugary, but the Canadian pensioners are not buying this line of government propaganda. Canadians of all political stripes, of all backgrounds and of all ages are banding together to tell the government one thing: “Keep your hands where we can see them and stay away from our money”.

It warms my heart to see Canadians of all kinds, weary of years of Liberal oppression, uniting together to demand an alternative. I want to tell all those opposed to the government's actions that they have friends on the benches of the official opposition.

I want to invite all Canadians who want a national government that will deliver lower taxes, better health care, greater democracy and a stronger federation characterized by a rebalancing of powers and equal treatment under the law to come join myself and my colleagues. Together we will deliver responsible government that cares, a government that listens to the people instead of telling them how it will be.

The first reason I oppose the bill is because it allows the federal government to continue its sleight of hand budgeting shell game. Even the Auditor General of Canada will not sign off on the government's budgets because of its bookkeeping methods.

The three funds contain a surplus of over $30 billion, money that has been contributed to the funds by the workers and by the taxpayers. This massive surplus has accumulated so quickly for several reasons. In order to explain this I will explain the basics of what affects the value of a pension fund.

A pension fund's value turns on three critical factors: interest rates, inflation and salary increases. The key reason for the size of the surplus was that actuaries assumed that wages would grow at 2% above the rate of inflation when in fact they have been frozen for the last six years.

That is another thing. A lot of people who worked for the government and who have retired in the last few years have had their wages frozen for six years. The settlement that they reached just a few weeks ago was not any great shakes after six or seven years of being frozen.

Since salaries were frozen, inflation was no longer a concern. The fund also grew because of the heady interest rates from the 1980s. The 20 year government bonds held by the funds have been providing handsome returns for the last five to ten years of relatively low interest rates.

Undoubtedly this is an enviable position to be in, as $30 billion is a huge amount of money. However, it goes without saying that when there is money involved there are bound to be two sides of the story.

The unions are telling Canadians that this money belongs to the civil servants who contributed to the fund. The government is telling Canadians that this money does not belong to the workers and it does not belong to the taxpayer, that it belongs to the government and the government alone.

The government does not feel that this money belongs to the workers alone because it alone was on the hook when the fund ran a deficit so it feels solely entitled to the surplus.

The gentlemen who came to see me last Friday pointed something out to me, and it is stated in some of their documents, that this indeed is a bit of a red herring that the government is trying to float.

However, what the government so easily forgets is that it does not have any money of its own. This is money that belongs to the taxpayers. It was the taxpayers who had to kick in when the government found itself $13 billion short, so it should be the taxpayers who benefit here.

Taxpayers will not benefit by having this money forfeited to the federal government.

The federal government has proven over and over again that it is not to be trusted with taxpayers' money. For all we know, this money will be used to print more joke books or to give away more free flags. Even today on the front page of the paper there is another story of some $50,000 or more going to a project that did not deserve any government or taxpayers' money.

This surplus should stay right where it is, away from the clutches of the government, right where the taxpayers can see it and readily available should any shortfall occur again.

There is another reason for opposing this bill. Part of the sugar-coating the Liberals are using to slip this bill past the public is that they are sweetening the benefits for employees and retirees. The bill states that survivor benefits are extended to an expanded class of beneficiary. The bill will extend benefits to the survivors of a so-called conjugal relationship, which sounds fine, but it becomes a little tricky when one tries to define what is a relationship of a conjugal nature. Is it a relationship between a man and a woman in the traditional family sense of the word? Does that include common law relationships between a man and woman? Does it include relationships between cohabiting same sex partners? Could it include two roommates? This bill could cover any of these situations, but it does not clearly define what is a conjugal relationship. Even if it did, how would a government prove whether a relationship is conjugal in nature?

Is this government, the party that is most famous for saying that it will stay out of the bedrooms of the nation, now going to hire private investigators to determine whether a relationship is conjugal? This is absolutely absurd. Without defining what conjugal relationships are, Bill C-78 survivor's benefits provisions could be subject to all kinds of litigation from individuals who deem their relationships to be of a conjugal nature.

My time is limited, but I would like to conclude by stressing one last point. Taxpayers are the odd man out in this debate. When these pension funds were created the government structured the funds in such a way that employees paid a combined 7.5% of their wages for their pension plan and the government's Canada pension plan. However, after years of successive CPP increases, with more to come, brought on by years of government mismanagement and neglect, the employee contribution to the pension fund slipped to 30%, with the government picking up the other 70%.

It was because of this mismanagement that taxpayers were forced to kick in $13 billion recently to cover shortfalls. In addition to that $13 billion, the government has taken an additional $10 billion by not making interest payments on the actuarial surplus of the fund. To anybody else this amounts to highway robbery, but to the Liberal finance minister it is called being fiscally prudent.

The government is about 30 years late in breaking the linkage between the CPP and pension plan contributions. It has already cost the taxpayer over $20 billion. It is high time that the taxpayer is shown some respect. It is because of this flagrant disrespect shown to the taxpayer and because of the extraordinary contempt that the government holds for the traditions of democracy that the Reform Party cannot support this bill.

As we work through this we must remember that this bill has been rammed through the committee with very little chance for comment and it is being rammed through the House.

The hon. member from Mississauga earlier said that there were only 15 amendments. I have a list showing 51 amendments on a bill that has 200 clauses. That represents one out of four clauses which opposition parties felt needed to be amended. As well, it is a tragedy that the government has brought in closure over 50 times.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to debate the merits of Bill C-441, an act respecting endangered species protection.

The sponsor of the bill, the member for Davenport and the chairman of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, is a learned man and a man committed to a cause. He puts his heart and his soul into environmental protection and is not reluctant to speak out, even against his government many times.

However there are times when I disagree with my colleague on the means that should be used to accomplish the end. I come from a background that promotes smaller, less invasive government, a government that does not overwhelm its citizens with mind numbing layers of bureaucracy. I am a firm believer in motivating people to take action through positive incentives, not through the threat of heavy handed government action.

It is because of these distinctions that the member for Davenport and I sit on opposite sides of the House. However, I am grateful that when we have differences of opinion we can engage in a public debate and let our positions be judged on the merits of our arguments.

Wildlife is an intrinsic part of the Canadian identity. From the days when native peoples roamed the lands to the days when the first European settlers arrived and today when Canadians spend over $11 billion in their nature pursuits, Canada's rugged beauty has captivated our souls.

We value nature and its wildlife for many reasons. We depend on a healthy environment for food and raw materials. We value the medicinal and health benefits we receive. A vibrant ecosystem cleans our air, purifies our water and nourishes our farm lands.

The economic spin-offs that come from recreational nature pursuits or from sustainable harvesting of our natural resources are a significant part of our national economy. Most important, we believe that we are given the duty of stewardship by our creator. We have a duty and an obligation to ensure that our environment is preserved for future generations.

This deep respect for nature and wildlife has created an international reputation of goodwill for Canada. This respect led Canada to make international commitments to protect its biological diversity. Canada was one of the first countries to ratify the UN Convention on Biological Diversity which committed Canada to a path of sustainable development. This convention also committed Canada to pursue an agenda of sustainable development and bound Canada to develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.

In spite of being home to almost 20% of the world's wildlife, Canada is failing to live up to these international obligations. Canada's wildlife is only protected through a piecemeal approach of federal and provincial legislation. This legislation while protecting some species does not adequately protect Canada's wildlife at risk.

In my role as the chief environment critic for the Reform Party I have repeatedly asked the government when it would be fulfilling its obligations by introducing responsible endangered species legislation. Despite my efforts I still have no answers.

In response to a letter that I wrote in March 1998 the environment minister promised that she would be introducing endangered species legislation before the end of that year. That target has passed and now the latest target date promised by the minister is quickly approaching. The minister recently promised to introduce legislation before the summer recess, but it is doubtful that she will even meet that target.

The Reform Party supports developing responsible endangered species legislation. It is even given specific mention in our blue book. Members of our party realize the important role that the federal government can play in protecting our wildlife at risk. We realize that the typical method of government intervention is outdated and ineffective. The command and the control authority that the government so dearly clings to do more harm than good.

One need only look to our southern neighbours to see the results of top down command and control, heavy handed government regulation. The United States endangered species act has been a complete failure. Billions of dollars have been spent on bureaucratic paper shuffling while not one endangered species has been delisted because of a successful recovery.

The hostile climate that this bill has created between private property owners and the federal government has done more harm to the cause of endangered species protection than having no legislation at all. The complete disregard for private property rights and absence of any positive stewardship incentives have virtually destroyed any spirit of co-operation between the government and landowners.

The government practice of seizing private lands without providing fair compensation has led to the so-called shoot, shovel and shut up syndrome where landowners would rather eliminate a resident endangered species on their land than run the risk of government seizure. This is perhaps the most telling statistic of this law's complete failure to recover one single species despite spending over $13 billion since its inception in 1973.

I fear for the well-being of the country when I hear calls for Canada to develop legislation based on this draconian example. This is not the protection that Canada's wildlife at risk needs. Canadian endangered species legislation should be driven by those people who are intimately connected with Canada's wildlife. Instead of being driven by invasive government actions regulated by a far removed bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that has no idea of the subtle nuances of the local endangered species, protection should start on the ground with those who will be directly affected.

On crown lands means fish and wildlife officers, wildlife experts, conservation groups and land users. “On private lands” means the farmers, ranchers and resource sector employees. These individuals should be our first line of defence. Stewardship of the land has a long tradition in Canada among those who depend on it for their livelihood. These responsible land users realize that if they treat the land with respect it will continue to sustain them with its bounty and goodness.

However it has not been the tradition of the government to give the proper respect to private property landowners. The last attempt by the Liberals to introduce endangered species legislation trampled the rights of landowners, granting the government the authority to arbitrarily seize lands without adequate compensation. It ignored stewardship initiatives in favour of government programs. It expected landowners to bear a disproportionate financial burden simply because they own the land.

Unfortunately I see this tradition continued in the bill we are debating today. The bill broadsides the rights of private property owners. Although the act applies to all lands there is no mention made of compensation for affected landowners. It pits neighbour against neighbour, allowing endangered species protection actions to be launched without even waiting for an investigation. If the government investigation clears an anonymously accused individual, the report does not require that the name of the accuser be made public, creating an environment of suspicion and hostility between neighbours.

In true Liberal fashion over half of the bill pertains to enforcement and punishment measures, while giving only cursory mention to recognizing private stewardship initiatives. The bill is about control. It is about giving unfettered power to the central government.

Landowners should be our first line of defence in the fight to protect endangered species. This means working with landowners instead of working against them. It means including them in decisions affecting their lands. It means educating them and assisting them in working with recovery plans. It means offering them compensation if their land is affected.

Responsible landowners who display proper land management practices, who have actively sought to protect and nurture endangered species, deserve to be recognized. Incentives can be used by the government to encourage and reward responsible stewardship practices. Responsible legislation will recognize this need and will provide for a process where governments and landowners can reach a mutually compatible, voluntary contractual agreement that protects wildlife at risk and respects private property rights.

My time is short but I would like to close with a few comments that I hope the member and his minister take under advisement. Science should be kept above politics by all means. Recommendations for species at risk should be made by an independent body based on scientifically sound evidence. However, the final decision must rest with parliament, for it alone has a democratic mandate which entitles it to balance the competing interests of economic and environmental needs. Although the bill rejects the concept of balancing economic and environmental needs, we cannot have a healthy environment without a healthy economy.

Finally, and I think I can say above all, I ask the minister to bear this in mind as she develops her own legislation. Environmental policies which emanate from liberty are the most successful. Our chosen environment is liberty and is the central organizing principle of Canada. There is a direct and positive relationship between free market societies and the healthiness, cleanliness and safety of the environment. Free people work to improve the environment and liberty is the energy behind environmental progress.