Rick Casson

[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.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the member. It is nice to see him in the House today, wound up like he is. I sit on the environment committee with him and this is quite unusual. He must be speaking from the heart.

We have an accumulated debt in this country of $580 billion. In the projections of this government for the next three years that will not go down one nickel. If it says that it is paying down the debt, it is not.

What part of the national debt should be paid down first, the part this government ran up or the part his government ran up? Should we use the GST money to do that? When his government was selling the GST it said that it would use that money to pay down the debt. I would like him to explain what happened.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose some questions to the member opposite and point out some facts about this budget, about what it has done to Canadians and about what this government has done to Canadians since it came to power in 1993.

I wonder if he would like to talk a little about bracket creep and the amount of money that has been taken out of Canadians' pockets, out of the pockets of families. That has hindered families from making ends meet. Each Canadian taxpayer is paying $2,000 more in taxes now than they did in 1993. Canadian taxpayers overall will pay $42.1 billion more in 1999 than they did in 1993.

The issue of disposable income should be hard to argue. Between 1993 and 1997 disposable income for Canadians fell by over $2,000. That is right out of the pockets of every Canadian. It takes food off the table and clothes off of kids' backs.

Would he not agree that Canadian taxpayers are getting $448 less each in health care dollars from this federal government than they got in 1993? Overall the health care budget is $4.3 billion less. There are almost 200,000 people in this country on waiting lists for health care. We get calls every day, as I am sure the member does, from people who are waiting for health care. There are 200,000 people in Canada waiting for health care.

Would the member like to comment on some of those issues?

[Taxation, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the taxodus continues. Last week the CEO of Nortel told the government that high taxes were driving Canadian talent south. Over the weekend the industry minister agreed with him, but the tax minister does not think we have high taxes and he does not believe that Canada is experiencing a brain drain.

Allow me to give the government a very real example. Dr. Kurt Ellenberger, a constituent of mine and a respected musician and university professor, just accepted a position at Michigan University. He told me that he is leaving because he is tired of seeing the lion's share of his wage “arrogantly gobbled up by this government's increasingly voracious appetite for the money it did not earn”.

He is tired of his pay raises being rendered virtually meaningless as CPP premiums skyrocket. He is leaving because Canada no longer is, in his words, “the land of opportunity”. Because of this government's high tax policies, Canada has lost a talented citizen.

When I asked Kurt if I could use his quotes, he wrote:

Dear Rick: Thanks for this opportunity—it is a delight to know that (Prime Minister) and his cronies will have to listen to me for a change...

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

I will. Just pay attention. In a rare scene of a cabinet minister coming to his senses, even the industry minister echoed the calls of the Reform Party for lower taxes. Imagine that.

Is that the parliamentary secretary's well thought vision for tomorrow? In spite of the $11.5 billion the government is adding to the health care system, the fact remains that federal transfers are still $4.3 billion less than when the Liberals took power.

If I go back to our earlier analogy, how does the taxpayer feel? Is he still reeling from the effects after that 30 year beating? The Liberals probably think he feels pretty good. After all, he was just given a free flag. In case that did not cheer him up, maybe the heritage minister can give him a copy of the dumb blonde joke book that he is paying for.

It seems a bunch of Liberals are going around western Canada trying to figure out how western Canadians feel. As someone who is trained in the fine art of grassroots representation, something members across have a little trouble with, I can say he is not doing so well. He is starting to feel the crushing burden of the national debt which has topped $580 billion, 94% of which was rung up since 1975. Each year two out of every three dollars he pays in income tax are gobbled up by interest charges on the national debt.

His family is feeling the pinch of these high taxes. Despite having the same household income as his neighbour, he is paying 24% more in taxes. That does not even include the cost of living expenses.

Feeling somewhat overtaxed and under appreciated, our friend went to the hospital to see what ailed him. When he got there he was told there would be a small wait. “No problem”, he said. Then he asked how many people were ahead of him. “Only about 188,000 or so”, said the nurse. “If you would please sit down, we should get to you within the next year”.

Instead of resuscitating Canadians with the tax relief they deserve, the Liberal government continues to spend, spend, spend. The budget announced $14.1 billion in spending initiatives over the next four years, including the remainder of this fiscal year. The government is expected to reap $156.5 billion for 1998-99, about $5.5 billion higher than what the finance minister predicted last year and about $12.5 billion higher than what he predicted the year before.

The finance minister calls these differences errors of prudence. This sleight of hand accounting will allow for plenty of new spending initiatives.

A recent poll taken by Compas showed that between 96% and 98% of people in each of the provinces believe that controlling taxes, spending and debt are important. Nine out of ten say that tax relief, not new spending, is their number one priority. These numbers are not at all surprising when one considers that the average taxpayer pays $2,000 more in taxes today than what he did when the Liberals took power six years ago.

The country needs to get competitive again. In December 1998 the chief economist of CIBC Wood Gundy said:

From a tax competitive standpoint, Canada ranks dead last in the G-7. While virtually every other G-7 economy lowered its personal income tax burden over the last 15 years, Canada's rose sharply, both as a percentage of GDP and of household income.

If there is one message that I want to hammer home today, it is that Canada needs a tax break and it needs it now. Canadians cannot wait for the finance minister's grand plans of tax breaks spread over the next 15 years. We need them now.

Here comes the person the parliamentary secretary was asking about. Just a week or two ago a constituent of mine, Professor Kurt Ellenberger, an accomplished musician and respected instructor at the University of Lethbridge, accepted a position with an American university. Kurt told me that he could not turn down the chance to double his after tax income. He said he could no longer bear to see his wage increases gobbled up by bracket creep. As a result, the University of Lethbridge and the community have lost a talented musician and teacher. That is just one example of brain drain in this country.

How many more Canadians are going to have to leave before the government wises up and implements some tax breaks?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss the ongoing assault by the Liberal government on the Canadian taxpayer, this time propagated through Bill C-71.

The last time I rose in the House to discuss the budget I chronicled the failure of the government to adequately protect the environment. I told the House that despite the fact taxpayers were paying more, they were getting less in environmental protection. I told the House how the budget for Environment Canada had been so deeply slashed that the department could not even enforce many of its current regulations, never mind any future considerations. The House also heard of the failure of the government to take serious action to clean up the contaminated sites which spread like cancer across this beautiful country.

Today I will speak to the budget in a broader sense, outlining the harm the government's reckless tax and spend policies are having on our country.

When the Liberals came to power in 1993 the Canadian taxpayer was reeling from 30 years of excessive taxation. Like a punch drunk fighter, the taxpayer was dazed and confused after repeated blows to his after tax take home pay and the level of government service.

For year's the government sucker punched the taxpayer, nearly knocking him out with nickel and dime jabs, a 7% shot below the belt, an upper cut to health care services, and a resounding haymaker to the tax equality of single income families.

Each time the taxpayer was nearly knocked out, the government showered cold cash on his nearly lifeless body offering up a coal mine here or some cheap western gas and oil over there. No subsidy was too large, no project too small. They were all showered with cold cash, cash that came from the blood and sweat of that same taxpayer. Take it out of one pocket and give it back to another. So it went for 30 years.

However, when the Liberals came to power in 1993 they had a chance to change all that. They had a chance to clean up government. They had what we call a golden opportunity. They could have seized the moment and cut out government waste. They could have followed through on their promise to scrap the GST. They could have taken charge of out of control government departments.

Best of all, they could have revived the taxpayer. They could have given him the best health care that money could buy. They could have helped his family by streamlining the tax system. They could have promised him a future by fixing his pension plan. They could have given him a safe secure job through increasing national productivity.

Unfortunately the Liberal government blew that chance. Instead of reviving the taxpayer with the sweet smells of tax cuts, the government body slammed the taxpayer by dropping the Canadian health and social transfers by 31%.

These cuts in federal government transfers caused great distress across the country as the provinces had to scramble to make up for the lack of federal money. Hospitals were closed. Medical staff were let go. Emergency rooms were filled to overflowing.

Canadians heard stories of patients sleeping in the hallways because there were not enough beds. Patients were made to wait weeks, sometimes even months for surgical procedures. Wealthy patients often elected out of the Canadian system and fled to the U.S. where they could buy the care they needed. A two tier health system exists in the country today. Year after year the assault continued with the cumulative reductions soon totalling over $20 billion with no end in sight.

The government made a big deal out of the budget this year, boasting that it would increase government transfers to health by $11.5 billion. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance bragged that the budget was a well thought vision for tomorrow.

Let us have a look at what tomorrow will bring. First, we will notice the increase in CPP premiums coming off our paycheques. Under the government's proposals for the Canadian pension plan Canadians will see their CPP premiums skyrocket over the next four years.

Next Canadians can look forward to reduced after tax income, thanks to the government's refusal to fully index income tax brackets. This insidious tax is costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars as brackets fail to keep up with the pace of inflation. This is a way the government can increase revenues without seeming to increase taxes, but indeed it is. This discriminant policy places a disproportionate burden of the increase on the shoulders of those who can least afford it, the poor.

Canadians can look forward to a reduced standard of living vis-à-vis their American neighbours. High taxes and onerous regulations have stifled the Canadian economy and have driven many of our best and brightest educated at taxpayer expense out of the country.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 23rd, 1999]

With respect to the six Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line radar sites in the Inuvialuit region in the Western Artic, could the Minister of National Defence provide: ( a ) a progress report on the cleanup of the sites which are covered under a separate co-operation agreement reached in February 1996; ( b ) the accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup; ( c ) the source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation; ( d ) the health hazards caused by the environmental contamination; ( e ) the list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts; and ( f ) the structure of the process used to award contracts?

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 23rd, 1999]

With respect to the fifteen Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line radar sites in the Nunavut Territory, could the Minister of National Defence provide: ( a ) the structure of the environmental framework for cleanup; ( b ) the accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup; ( c ) the source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation; ( d ) the health hazards caused by the environmental contamination; ( e ) the list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts; and ( f ) the structure of the process used to award contracts?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Private Member's Bill C-403, an act that would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale and offering for sale and in certain circumstances the possession of lead sinkers and jigs.

The member for Simcoe—Grey is to be commended for bringing such an important environmental issue to the forefront. The issue of lead poisoning in our environment is an important concern and something for all Canadians and all levels of government to be aware of.

The lead poisoning in our environment has become a widespread problem due to historically extensive and varied use of lead. Its low melting point, its malleability, ease of processing and low cost have resulted in its use in a wide range of applications. It has been used in solder, plumbing pipes, paints, pottery glazes, crystal ware, gasoline, hunting shot and fishing sinkers and jigs.

However, through the years as our science improved, more has been discovered about lead's intrinsically high toxicity and the adverse effects it can have on our environment. Although science has known about the toxicity of lead and the potential it has for poisoning wildlife since the turn of the century, it has been a long process from scientific discovery to government regulatory action.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s the Canadian Wildlife Service expressed significant concern over the lead poisoning of waterfowl from lead shot ingestion. This initial concern did not translate into extensive research and study until the late 1980s when the United States announced its intention to completely ban the use of lead shot in waterfowl hunting by 1991.

The announcement of this ban initiated a series of studies by the Canadian Wildlife Service that determined that there was insufficient evidence to justify a national ban. However, since that time, extensive research has been conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service and others on several fronts which has led to a reassessment of this earlier decision and has instigated federal government regulatory action.

Lead sinkers and jigs are used primarily by fresh water sports fishermen. These products are quite popular due to their ease of use, widespread availability and inexpensive cost. The most common sinker used is the split shot sinker which the member explained, which in the United States accounts for almost half of the total sinker production. I dread to think of how many of those I have bitten down on in my life.

Across Canada it is estimated that over five million Canadians take part in recreational fishing activities, buying nearly 560 tonnes of lead in the form of lead sinkers. Virtually all of this lead is destined for the bottom of Canada's lakes and rivers. When a lead sinker is lost, it settles on the bottom of the body of water where it can be ingested by waterfowl.

Many ducks and other birds get their food by digging in the mud at the bottom of a lake or river. The birds ingest small stones called grit to grind up their food and cannot differentiate between a sinker of 50 grams or less and a small pebble.

A fish eating water bird such as the common loon may also be attracted to bait on a fishing hook. Often times loons will swallow the hook and sinker when it is still attached to the line. The birds may also eat fish that have swallowed a sinker. Once a bird swallows a lead sinker it will become very sick and often will die. Because lead sinkers are relatively large, larger than lead hunting shot, it often takes only one sinker to kill a bird.

The Canadian Wildlife Service has determined that lead sinker ingestion is probably the most frequent cause of lead poisoning in species such as the common loon, poisoning up to 30,000 loons annually.

Many of these loons will quickly die and their lead contaminated carcasses are eaten by predators, leading to further secondary poisoning. In response to this growing problem governments have slowly but surely begun to take action. In Great Britain the use of lead sinkers was prohibited in 1987 as a response to the deaths of thousands of mute swans. In the U.S. lead sinkers have been banned in some national parks and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is pursuing further regulatory action.

In its 1995 report entitled “It's About Our Health! Towards Pollution Prevention”, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommended that the federal government take action under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to regulate lead sinkers and jigs by prohibiting the import, sale, manufacture and use of lead sinkers and jigs by May 31, 1997.

Although Environment Canada did use the Migratory Birds Convention Act to control the use of lead shot in certain areas of the country, it did not adopt the recommendations of the committee and prohibit the nation-wide use of lead sinkers and jigs.

The most recent action taken by the federal government was on September 17, 1997 when the wildlife area regulations pursuant to the Canada Wildlife Act were amended to prohibit the possession of any lead sinker or jig weighing less than 50 grams in national wildlife areas where sport fishing is authorized through permit or notice.

This amendment was similar to the amendment made to the national parks fishing regulations made under the authority of the National Parks Act. These regulations also ban the use or possession of any lead sinker or jig containing more than 1% lead by content in any national park in Canada.

Canada has also implemented regulations that will prohibit the use of lead shot when hunting for migratory birds pursuant to the authority granted under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

It appears to me that the federal government has been cautious about regulating the lead content of hunting shot and fishing tackle because of its concern about jurisdictional authority, and rightfully so. To date the government has only used legislation that is explicitly federal in nature. The National Parks Act, the Canada Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act are all pieces of legislation that clearly authorize federal government intervention.

Although the bill has been deemed non-votable, I urge the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey to be cautious in his approach in the future. The Constitution Act, 1867, and the subsequent amendment made in 1982 do not clearly define all areas of provincial and federal jurisdiction over the environment and its conservation.

Since the Constitution does not clearly define all areas of jurisdiction, any regulatory action based on an unclear area of jurisdiction will likely be met with stiff opposition from the provinces.

Although the Supreme Court of Canada has constitutionally upheld the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as an exercise of parliament's power over criminal law, the federal government would be wise to move with caution on this issue, lest it intrude on areas of provincial domain.

Although the hon. member brings forward a very important issue and makes a compelling case for federal government regulation, my party and I cannot support him in this quest.

The Reform Party is committed to decentralization of federal authority and supports the restraint of the legislative powers of the federal executive and the Prime Minister's cabinet. Legislative authority should rest with the level of government that is able to govern most effectively in each area, with a bias toward decentralization in cases of uncertainty.

In the principles and policies of the Reform Party contained in the 1999 blue book it is stated that the Reform Party supports the principle that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over, among other things, sport fishing. Since it is clear that the target of the bill is Canada's sport fishing community, I cannot support it as it stands.

I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague from Simcoe—Grey for his admirable initiative. Canada's environment is best served when individual Canadians make personal commitments to conservation and protection, and I urge him to continue his vigilance.