House of Commons Hansard #211 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rights.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:35 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:35 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present this evening will be voting no on this motion.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois are opposed to this motion.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:35 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, NDP members present in the House this evening vote no.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Harvey Progressive Conservative Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party are against this motion.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:35 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will make it unanimous on the part of the opposition and vote no.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 383Government Orders

6:35 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read the third time and passed.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to order made on Friday, April 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-27.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there agreement to proceed in such fashion?

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present this evening will be voting nay on this motion.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no on this motion.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote yes on this motion.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Harvey Progressive Conservative Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes on this motion.

Coastal Fisheries Protection ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would vote no on behalf of my constituents.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 384Government Orders

6:40 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Division No. 384Government Orders

6:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Order, please. It being 6.43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Canadian Environmental Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

moved that Bill C-403, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (lead sinkers and lead jigs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to rise today to address my private member's bill on the prohibition of lead sinkers and jigs for use in Canadian waters, namely Bill C-403.

I offer my sincere thanks to the Minister of the Environment. Over the past number of weeks, she has made her staff and her department available for numerous consultations on how best to address this issue. For that I say, thanks.

I should also make mention that although the government has made significant strides toward the elimination of lead sinkers, the minister has assured me that her efforts will be increased in order to address this serious environmental concern.

I also offer my sincere appreciation to a few other individuals, namely Mr. John Phillips and Mr. Rob Anderson. These two individuals have dedicated enormous amounts of time in trying to raise the profile of this issue to many Canadians. If it were not for their efforts this issue would simply not be before the House today. I believe Canadians owe Mr. Phillips and Mr. Anderson a debt of gratitude for this.

I would also like to thank the people who took the time to assist me and advise me on the most effective ways to achieve the desired outcome, that being the eventual elimination of lead in our Canadian waters. Specifically I cite some names.

Mr. Craig Ritchie from the publication Real Fishing offered many positive suggestions regarding my efforts toward ensuring a successful outcome. Although he was critical of the original language that still stands today within the bill, he did offer many sound ideas for consideration.

I am confident that those who chose to offer positive criticisms as well as advice will be very pleased to see the direction this Liberal government will take in dealing with this issue.

This bill is certainly not the first time it has been recommended that the minister take the necessary steps to eliminate lead sinkers from Canadian waters. In May 1997 the standing committee on the environment recommended that the minister initiate a regulatory action to prohibit the import, the sale, the manufacture and the use of lead sinkers and jigs that are equal to or less than 2.5 centimetres in dimension. My bill falls in line with this.

At this time I would like to share some startling facts as well as some potential and actual impacts regarding the use of lead sinkers.

There is an estimated annual 500 tonnes of lead fishing sinkers and jigs lost in Canadian waters every year. This represents millions upon millions of individual sinkers and jigs that are lying at the bottom of Canadian lakes and rivers. This can no longer go unchecked.

The potential impacts are as severe as they are broad. The fact is that lead sinkers are deemed to be a highly toxic substance. This is irrefutable. The fact is lead sinkers are killing our waterfowl. This fact is also irrefutable.

There are also many other areas where lead sinkers may be having serious implications. Sadly there has not been enough science based research done in these areas to fully prove the negative impacts at this time. Some of these areas that require much more research and focus are the impact on various fish species after ingestion has occurred.

I would also suggest that there are very few fishers in Canada that have not lost a lead weight or a lead lure to a fish that is determined not to be caught. Common sense must tell us that if a fish is ingesting lead sinkers and further that lead sinkers are a toxic substance, then there must be negative consequences to the fish.

I am convinced that if we present a science based case to the anglers in this country as to the negative impacts on the fish population as well as other areas, they will be more than happy to source out and use alternatives that are presently available. Make no mistake, there are alternatives available.

We must not overlook the fact that some of the greatest environmentalists we have in this country are sports anglers. They have proven time and time again their unwavering commitment to our natural resources through fishery stocking programs, to river bed clean-ups to building fish ladders. Their commitment has been unequalled. It is for this reason I am confident that if science demonstrates a negative impact on fish populations as it has demonstrated on waterfowl, our anglers will not simply follow our direction, our anglers will lead the way.

Let me address some of the many areas where lead has been and in fact continues to be removed from human contact. An example is lead based paints. For years there was no question as to the use of lead based paint. It was applied to almost every home and office wall in the country. However, once we identified lead as a toxic substance we quickly moved to have lead based paints banned from sale in order to protect ourselves from the obvious health threats.

Again we as concerned parents also support the removal of lead pipes from many of our older institutions, including many of our school buildings. These actions demonstrate our concern for ourselves and much more important, our children, who may be ingesting water travelling through lead pipes.

I have very fond memories of fishing with my father, with my friends and my sons over the past number of years. I think back to the days of fishing out in Georgian Bay. Many boats, many anglers gathered around for the excellent fishing available in Georgian Bay. We would watch the fishermen and the anglers and almost without exception when rejigging the lines they would put the line in the split shot and bite down on it.

The very same day as we watched the people handle those lead split shots and the bell sinkers, as they rejigged the line and threw it back over the boat, what did they do? They reached into their lunch box, grabbed their sandwich and ate it. Sometimes it merely takes the issue of receiving a higher profile for us to recognize the consequences of our actions. If this bill does nothing more than that, I will consider it a success.

During the time I spent drafting the private member's bill, I intentionally kept the bill as simple and straightforward as possible. The goal is very simple: the elimination of lead sinkers and jigs in Canadian waters. However, knowing the profile the issue would receive, I knew that there would be many opportunities available for worthwhile amendments and alternative suggestions on how to best combat this problem.

To this end this initiative has been very successful. There have been some very good suggestions and amendments brought forward to me by other members of parliament as well as by constituents from across the country. People are starting to buy into the theory that lead is bad and they should no longer be using it for fishing when there are viable alternatives available.

Following the first presentation of my bill it became blatantly obvious that the only way to truly impact the use of lead sinkers was through community buy-in based on sound research and factual education. It is to this end I have had the assurance of the minister that a strategy such as this will be embarked upon immediately.

There have been other positive suggestions that have come forward. Considering we live in a time where we label products such as cleaners, varnishes, chemicals and even cigarettes, would it not make sense to consider labelling lead sinkers that are sitting on the shelves or that are going on the shelves today as to the potential impacts of the handling of those things? Once again this is the type of strategy that falls in line with education and communication rather than a strict enforcement policy brought forward immediately.

I want to clearly state that the intent of this bill is not to create division but rather to create an environment of co-operation. It is in this light that the Minister of the Environment and the Liberal government should commend themselves for attempting to secure that type of co-operation.

There are other possible ideas to consider when looking at the elimination of lead sinkers. For instance, consideration should be given to investigate a possible gradual implementation which in turn would not create undue hardship on retailers, as well as the cottage industry, that presently derive benefits from the said product. We should also investigate a buy back program, as well as possible tax incentives in order to create a more competitive environment when considering alternatives.

As I said, make no mistake, there are viable alternatives out there. As a Liberal government, some of the positive steps that we can take when striving for positive solutions to a negative situation are things that should be dealt with immediately.

I would like to take a minute to speak about some of the research that has been completed on this particular issue with regard to the impact of lead sinkers and jigs in Canadian waters. There are those who will challenge any and all research completed on any particular issue if it does not conform to their way of thinking. This is not a bad thing. Any fact based position must be able to stand the test of challenge.

However, whether one agrees completely with the findings of research or suggests that it may require more investigation and provide greater detail, common sense must dictate that there is some measure of substance to the findings with regard to the definite impact on waterfowl. If we accept that in principle there is a devastating impact or that there is an impact to waterfowl then I think what we will find is unanimous support in the House to move forward and attempt to deal with this very serious situation.

While we accept the fact that many of our various species of waterfowl are not on the endangered species list, we must not detract from our focus of eliminating a hazardous substance that clearly represents a dangerous impact not only on waterfowl but on the fish population and yes, on people as well.

I ask the House to work with the Minister of the Environment and our government to implement a research based education program. This will ensure communities fact based information which I believe in turn will result in the partnering and the elimination of hundreds of tonnes of lead being deposited into what we recognize as one of the cleanest and most pristine water systems in the world.

I again want to offer my thanks to my seconder as well as the Minister of the Environment and many of the colleagues on both sides of the House that have taken the time to contact me and offer their suggestions, their ideas and in some cases their criticisms on how we should be moving forward with this. Once again I will make mention that I consider it a success that we have raised that kind of interest in the House and all across this country.

We are depositing hundreds of millions of lead sinkers and jigs in our Canadian waterways every year. If we accept the fact that lead is a toxic substance, that it is having an impact on waterfowl, once science based research is done I am sure it will demonstrate it is having an impact on fish populations, and we have certainly demonstrated that it has a very negative impact on humankind. I am sure we will be able to draw a consensus that we have to stop this and stop it as soon as possible.

On that note I thank my hon. colleagues who are staying around to offer comments on this issue that is very close to my heart. I am more than happy to listen to their addresses.

Canadian Environmental Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

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.

Canadian Environmental Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-403, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (lead sinkers and lead jigs).

I must remind this House that Bill C-32 on environmental protection is at report stage. The process at committee stage was quite long and hard in order to not add further amendments to the bill.

The Bloc Quebecois voted against Bill C-32, which contains many gaps in the recognition of provincial jurisdiction, in the poor translation of the bill's clauses from English into French and by the lack of consistency in the amendments brought in committee.

To get back to Bill C-403, I think the intent of the member for Simcoe—Grey is legitimate and laudable, because one of the main problems involving lead sinkers and jigs is the poisoning of the loons, black ducks, brent geese, snow geese and other waterfowl that swallow them.

Most of the lead sinkers and jigs will end up one day or another in the fishing areas, along shore lines, rocky areas and docks on lakes, ponds or streams. These fishing areas are often used for reproduction and feeding by the waterfowl.

An estimated 500 tonnes of this fishing tackle accumulates annually in Canadian waters. According to various studies, between 17% and 56% of loons die from the effects of lead fishing tackle.

Lead sinkers and jigs are often lost when fishing lines become tangled and break. These objects sink and when birds swallow them they often become very sick and sometimes die. Swallowing just one of these objects is enough to kill an aquatic bird.

The problem is as follows. When a bird ingests lead sinkers and jigs, they can remain stuck in its gizzard, a muscular stomach which enables it to break down food. In doing so, the gizzard also breaks down fishing tackle, decomposing it into tiny particles. The acid present in the gizzard dissolves these particles and the lead then passes into the bird's bloodstream. The dissolved lead is then carried throughout the organism and ends up in bones and vital organs.

When it decomposes in the environment, lead can contaminate soil and water. For example, on certain skeet shooting ranges, the soil contains enough lead to be considered dangerous waste. Decades may pass before the lead shot and weights decompose in the environment.

A speedy remedy is therefore necessary against this practice that is harmful to aquatic fauna.

Is it helpful to recall that approximately 50 to 60 million birds are potential targets for this kind of contamination? Lead sinkers and jigs are used exclusively by anglers. These are the users that must be targeted if this hazard is to be eliminated. A well-orchestrated public awareness campaign could be effective in resolving part of the problem.

Possible solutions could include persuading fishers to switch to other materials, such as tin, bismuth, steel, or a special mastic. These materials are not toxic to birds. In addition, lead poisoning of loons and other aquatic fowl must be reduced by cutting back on the volume of lead tackle sold and used. One solution would be to introduce regulations that would simultaneously increase the availability, sale and use of non-toxic substitutes.

Provincial, territorial or federal legislation is becoming essential in order to gradually eliminate small lead sinkers and jigs of 500 grams or less for sports fishing.

The introduction of public education programs could be considered to publicize non-toxic substitutes and suggest methods of recovering, eliminating or recycling lead products.

It is true that the substitutes now available cost more, but they would increase total average annual fishing costs by 1% to 2% at most.

Very tough and effective regulations are needed to eliminate this problem of lead contaminating our waterways. Since 1997, federal regulations have been in force in national reserves and parks. If these regulations are to be extended to other sectors, provincial governments have a responsibility to try to limit the presence of lead in waterways.

The federal government must respect provincial jurisdictions so as not to again interfere in matters that do not concern it. We are obviously not questioning the legitimacy of the bill introduced by the member for Simcoe—Grey, but we are not convinced that including it in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the best approach.

We in the Bloc Quebecois think that there are various solutions to this threat to fauna that has gone on for too long.

Canadian Environmental Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill on behalf of my caucus and specifically on behalf of our environmental spokesperson, my hon. colleague from Churchill River in Saskatchewan.

I thank the member for Simcoe—Grey for bringing the hazards of lead sinker and jig use to the attention of the House. He is quite correct that giving it focus at this level should create greater concern and moves to deter and ban the use of such products. I acknowledge that the bill has not been deemed votable and therefore will not see the results that it so desired. I was somewhat disappointed that he was willing to let the government bureaucracy run its course without a much greater fight. When it goes through the government bureaucracy that in many cases means no action and ultimately no concrete results.

Rather than getting into a number of the facts we have listened to this evening, I do not think there is any question from what we have heard that there is a problem with the use of lead in a number of products when they continue through the food chain, going through fish and birds and then on to humans, something that has not been mentioned this evening unless I missed it. There are consequences for animals and fish but they also travel through the food chain.

Let us get on with encouraging anglers to use other products and let us be clear there are other products. Bismuth and high density plastic products are available so it is not as if there is not something there. I recognize that anglers may see a minimal increase in cost and that some anglers prefer to make their own sinkers and jigs. In the whole context the hazards outweigh the benefits and we should be going to the other products.

I do not need a lengthy study to convince me of the hazards. I do not think we have to go through that whole process again with fish. When we see that a substance causes cancer in rats, do we try the product on humans or on other animals to see if it will cause cancer as well? I do not think so. Countless studies prove lead is a deadly toxic substance. As indicated previously, it has been removed from paint and other products including gasoline.

It is in the form of gasoline that I personally saw adults, young children and infants affected. Gas sniffing was a serious problem in some northern Manitoba communities. When lead was a gas additive the consequences were very apparent. A good number of members may not have seen four year old children die as a result of gas sniffing, all as a result of the lead in the gas.

I do not need to be convinced. I would encourage the committee to continue its review of this matter and encourage the environment minister to proceed with a ban of lead products. I am not willing to get caught up in the federal-provincial issue. I would find it hard to believe that provincial governments would not accept this as an environmental hazard and see it in the same light. I hope we pursue a ban at the federal level.

Canadian Environmental Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate on Bill C-403, sponsored by the member for Simcoe—Grey and seconded by the member for York North.

I think the debate which he has brought forward is indeed very constructive and I would like to state that I support the intent of his bill, although if this were a votable motion we would likely not support it and I would like to expand on our reasons for doing so.

The motion brought forward is indeed very constructive. The hon. member points out that this issue falls under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, legislation which we initiated back in 1988, which is enduring a very long review in committee. We have been doing a clause by clause examination of it since late October. The reason we would not support this bill is because there are other venues available to address the issue which he has brought forth.

As the hon. member has pointed out, and I believe my colleagues have mentioned, an estimated 500 tonnes of lead fishing sinkers and jigs or tackle are lost in the waters of Canadian rivers, lakes and ponds each year. That 500 tonnes ends up in the food chain of numerous species, namely waterfowl and fish, and can ultimately be absorbed by human beings. Therefore, this issue is indeed hazardous to human health.

Scientists have estimated that between 17% and 56% of the deaths of all waterfowl, particularly loons, are related to lead tackle, jigs and sinkers which are deposited within our lakes and rivers.

I would also like to point out that a single lead sinker or jig can poison a loon. It will ultimately get into its digestive system and in short order the bird is incapable of flying and experiences a loss of balance. Ultimately a species could be extirpated from a given area, endangered or become a species at risk because of sports fishermen.

I would like to point out that sports fishermen are likely the most environmentally conscious citizens who exist in this country. I know that in my riding of Fundy—Royal, the Sussex Fish and Game Association and the Hammond River Angling Association has done enormous things in terms of restoring fish habitat along the Kennebecasis River and along the Hammond River. This has been done on a volunteer basis and, indeed, they should be applauded for it.

We are now seeing trout species returning to our area. We are now seeing Atlantic salmon returning to these rivers. The sports fishermen want to do the right thing from an environmental perspective.

On March 1 I wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans outlining my understanding that under section 43(e) of the Fisheries Act his department has the power to make regulations respecting the use of fishing gear and equipment.

Since the government already has the power to resolve this preventable situation, I urged the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to consider banning this harmful tool in Canada.

This debate is indeed very constructive. The member for Simcoe—Grey is really doing a positive thing here in terms of advancing this issue.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is sadly sidelined at the moment due to an accident. I know he will be returning to the House in a number of weeks. Perhaps he is looking over some things to read. I would suggest that the hon. member send the fisheries minister a fax or a note saying that when he does return to the House of Commons, and we welcome his return, this is something he could do under section 43(e) of the Fisheries Act, as opposed to doing it under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is a regulation that actually could be made.

This is not unprecedented. In 1987 the United Kingdom banned lead tackle due to the fact that they had lost a number of mute swans. This was the corrective action which they took.

The federal government has banned lead fishing tackle on federal lands, which is a positive thing. However, fish do not necessarily know whether they are in federal or provincial waters.

This reminds me of what the environment department is discussing with respect to the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. It is willing to protect an animal if it is on federal lands, but if the animal steps off federal lands it will not necessarily protect core habitat. If it is the right thing to do within our international parks, it is the right thing to do throughout the country.

This is an environmental initiative on which I believe we should move forward. It is long overdue. We should take our time. We should ensure that we phase in this legislation from a regulatory perspective because there are a number of fishermen who own lead sinkers and there are retailers who have already made an investment in them. We have to ensure that we do this in a very prudent way.

As my colleague from the Reform Party has pointed out, who I consider to be a friend of mine, more often than not regulations made in Ottawa actually infringe upon provincial rights. The more often we can get the delivery of a government service closer to the people, the better. Therefore, I concur with doing things on a provincial basis rather than a federal basis.

In this case, in terms of the protection of the environment, I believe that the federal government has a role to play and that banning it under section 43(e) of the Fisheries Act would be a step in the right direction.

I am encouraging the government to make an amendment to the regulations to make it an environmental initiative. It should do that because it is now in the sixth year of its mandate and it has yet to pass one piece of environmental legislation, except for the MMT bill, which cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million because it did not ban that substance under the CEPA.

This is environmental legislation which it could implement, which would have a positive effect on fish, waterfowl and ultimately human health.

I compliment the member for Simcoe—Grey for bringing this debate forward. I encourage him to write that letter to the fisheries minister to ensure that it will be done under section 43.