Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was environment.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Progressive Conservative MP for Fundy Royal (New Brunswick)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Nuclear Waste April 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a long term nuclear waste disposal problem. The material is currently stored at temporary sites at Canada's 22 nuclear reactor stations. According to the Seaborn panel, Canadians still need to be convinced that the solution is to bury it deep in the Canadian shield. Despite all of this, the government is looking at importing weapons grade plutonium from the U.S. and Russia to burn at Canadian reactors.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Does the minister have any plans to ensure that this imported plutonium will not compound Canada's nuclear waste disposal problems?

Canadian Environmental Protection Act April 20th, 1999

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.

The Environment April 20th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, a foreign affairs committee called a plan to burn weapons grade plutonium in Canada totally infeasible. A recent U.S. environmental assessment on the project stated activities conducted in Canada would be the sole responsibility of the Canadian government.

Given Canada's poor record on enforcement as pointed out by the environment committee last year and that superficial screenings account for 99% of Canada's environmental assessment as pointed out by the auditor general, what assurances can the Minister of the Environment provide that the decision to burn U.S. and Russian weapons plutonium will be environmentally safe and secure for all Canadians?

Questions On The Order Paper April 16th, 1999

With regard to the upcoming influx of 220 newly unemployed Canadians which will result from the impending closure at Lantic Sugar in Saint John, New Brunswick, does the government have a plan to assist them in finding new jobs and, if so, what is the plan?

Kosovo April 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about some of the comments that were made earlier by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I know that he and the Prime Minister are both students of history. He was referring to Robert Borden's comments that we must ensure parliament always has continuous and meaningful consultation.

As was asked by the member for Compton—Stanstead earlier in question period, has the Government of Canada made a commitment to NATO to send in ground troops? That question was asked of the Minister of National Defence but he did not answer it. Does she have any knowledge that commitment has been made by any member of cabinet or by the Minister of National Defence?

Kosovo April 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Some of the concerns which he has are shared by all members of the House.

I was quite concerned that the Minister of National Defence evaded the question with respect to whether a commitment has already been made to NATO, if there are to be ground troops, that Canada is in.

My question is for the Leader of the Opposition who has been calling for a vote in the House and who has proposed an amendment to the House. Could he explain why he failed to stand in the House to block the government's motion which prohibits a vote on this amendment, as we did earlier?

Budget Implementation Act, 1999 April 12th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of brief comments with respect to my hon. colleague's remarks. He spoke to the issue of Bill S-11 which was introduced by the member for Shefford and sponsored originally by Senator Cohen in the Senate.

Establishing social condition in the Canadian bill of human rights was something a number of provinces across the country have done. Given that the Minister of Justice just the other week made comments indicating that social condition should at least be considered or studied to be added to the charter of human rights, would the member not think that by not supporting Bill S-11 on this occasion and perhaps doing it down the road is an indication that the government prefers a bit of partisanship as opposed to doing the right thing and voting for Bill S-11 right away?

Budget Implementation Act, 1999 April 12th, 1999

In lieu of the comments I just made, would the hon. Reform Party member concur that if we want to ensure that all children are treated equally we should tax families that have one parent working inside the home and one parent working outside the home in the same way as we do dual income parents?

Budget Implementation Act, 1999 April 12th, 1999

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite was commenting on the child tax credit, which is a positive initiative and heads in the right direction.

However, if he really wanted to ensure that we actually have fairer taxes, he should read the initiative that we proposed in Winnipeg in 1996 as part of our policy document. The Reform Party dedicated an opposition day in the House with respect to ensuring that we have fairer tax treatment for families with one parent who chooses to work in the home and one parent who actually—

Budget Implementation Act, 1999 April 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to state to my hon. colleague, the member from the province of Saskatchewan, since he mentioned that this may be one of the last speeches he makes in the House, that I consider him to be a very thoughtful contributor to the House of Commons. We wish him the best in his future endeavours as he moves into another venue.

Although his approach in terms of social democracy may be different from my fiscal conservative approach, he did highlight some priorities in terms of what the economy has to do. The best way to actually grow an economy in which we can make interventions with respect to education and our health care system is to lower taxes and lower our debt level. Then we could have a more vibrant private sector that would increase revenues. We have seen this in the province of Ontario where the Harris government has been able to lower taxes and therefore increase government revenues.

My comment to the hon. member is simple. I concur with his initiatives in terms of making post-secondary education more accessible, but government intervention is not necessarily and always the easy way out.