Paul Bonwick

[The Late Hugh Hanrahan, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House to allow me to present a petition.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her question. It is an issue that is certainly near and dear to my heart and impacts my riding as well as ridings all across the country.

As late as about three weeks ago I introduced a private member's bill banning lead sinkers and jigs. Although it was deemed to be a non-votable item at that point in time, we were successful in securing the support of the Minister of the Environment. At this time I would certainly like to thank her and congratulate her for rising to the challenge.

The lead sinkers and jigs issue that is impacting Canadians all across the country is a crucial issue and it is a hidden issue. Most people in the House and in fact all across the country did not realize the severity of the situation regarding the deposit of lead sinkers and jigs in our Canadian waters. At that time I drew a scenario. It is actually taking place as we speak today and throughout most of the year. It boils down to that this legislation will help through community buy ins, support in that sector and identifying it as such a toxic substance as it is in Bill C-32.

Between 500 and 600 tonnes of lead are deposited in Canadian waters every year. The analogy I used was approximately 500 half-ton pick-ups fully loaded with lead lined up bumper to bumper. That is the kind of situation which is taking place with respect to lead being dumped in Canadian waters.

I was proud to address that issue on behalf of not only the constituents of Simcoe—Grey, but also people who are impacted in all areas of Canada. That is certainly one measure where I think the government has been very proactive and will continue to be so.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for waiting with bated breath over question period to hear my closing remarks on the issue of Bill C-32 and more specifically concentrating on the toxic substance contents of the legislation.

As I was mentioning, the quantity of these substances can build up over time. They cause long term, serious, adverse health effects both to the environment and to people. Once in the environment these substances will continue to damage our health and the health of our ecosystems over many generations through a subtle effect of endocrine, immune, reproductive and other sensitive biological systems. Virtual elimination is necessary to protect our health and that of our environment.

Bill C-32 allows for creative approaches in controlling toxic substances to achieve results faster and to provide greater flexibility. A reactive or control management approach is often costly and time consuming. In some circumstances traditional regulations remain the best solution. However, they are only one of several tools that Bill C-32 places at our disposal. These tools include pollution prevention plans, voluntary initiatives and economic instruments such as tradable permits to control toxic substances.

These new tools focus on environmental results rather than the means by which they are achieved. They give operators the flexibility to incorporate cost effective measures that suit the needs without the direct intervention of the government as long as the required environmental protection objectives are met. This results often in a greater reduction in toxic emissions that would otherwise be achieved through traditional regulatory approaches.

Canada can learn from actions of other countries as well. For example, Bill C-32 requires the federal government to review the decisions and control actions of toxic substances taken by other countries to determine if they are relevant and applicable to Canadian situations. The government will regularly review decisions taken by provinces in Canada or by member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to substantially restrict toxic substances.

We have listened to the concerns of Canadians about toxic substances. I believe the environmental legislation before us today addresses these concerns. A strengthened CEPA will provide the Government of Canada with the tools needed to protect the Canadian environment and the health of Canadians.

I urge the House to support the legislation and give it speedy passage so that Canada will be an environmental leader in the 21st century. It is our responsibility as members of parliament, as the Government of Canada and as proud Canadian citizens to make sure this piece of legislation goes through. Our children and our environment are depending on it.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will resign myself to your direction. If that is most comfortable for the House, I would be more than happy to take part in the debate after question period.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to address what very well could be one of the most important pieces of legislation the House deals with. I make that statement due to the fact that there is no greater issue any government could address than that of our environment.

There are few pieces of legislation that touch every facet of Canadian life and this is one. I would hope that all members of the House recognize this indisputable fact. If we recognize this, I would then suggest that the debate be centred around the support of the legislation and the responsibility that we have to Canadians. To do otherwise simply states that we are not prepared to safeguard our country nor our planet for future generations.

The buck stops here. If we cannot demonstrate the vision necessary to ensure our children are provided with a better and healthier environment, we should ask ourselves what we are doing here.

There are groups that will try to convince members, through misleading statements, accurate facts and through nothing more than fear-mongering, that the legislation is not necessary. They are wrong. They are not doing a service to the country or to future generations by opposing such an important and critical piece of legislation.

Since 1988 the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly known in the House and across the country as the CEPA, has been the cornerstone of federal environmental and health protection legislation.

One of the most critical components of the bill allows for the control of toxic substances, a topic that many members are well aware is near and dear to my heart. It will be in this area that I will concentrate my remarks.

It is in regard to Bill C-32 that they take full advantage of the advancements in environmental science, policy and law over the past decade. Concepts like sustainable development and pollution prevention have been widely accepted and needed to be incorporated in our laws. We are quite simply strengthening the CEPA in line with these concepts so that the government will be better able to protect the environment and the health of Canadians from the dangers of toxic substances.

Many toxic substances do not stay put once they are released into the environment. Toxic substances, such as mercury and PCBs for example, have been found in the blood of aboriginal peoples in communities high in the Arctic located far away from industrial development. One might ask how this could happen. Substances are transported to remote areas and pristine environments through air currents. They have long term adverse effects on the health of the people and wildlife who breath the air, drink the water or consume the food contained therein.

Canadians are concerned about the risks that toxic substances pose to their health, to their children's health and to the long term environment of Canada.

What will Bill C-32 do to reduce or eliminate this threat? The good work that is already underway to identify and manage toxic substances will continue. The bill will introduce innovations to allow more efficient and effective government action in carrying out these activities.

As a result of the amendments made during the committee stage, the bill requires the Ministers of the Environment and Health to conduct research on hormone disrupting substances. I should add that the government has already acted to meet the requirement under a $40 million toxic substance research initiative, a commitment the government is very proud of.

The legislation requires that all 23,000 substances in Canada are looked at to determine if they are toxic. Committee amendments require the first stage, and the biggest step of this mammoth undertaking, to be completed within seven years. It also incorporates into the legislation key features of the federal toxic substances management policy which sets out precautionary, proactive and accountable rules for dealing with toxic substances; an absolute must, I suggest.

Bill C-32 incorporates the precautionary principle. This means that the government will not have to wait for full scientific certainty before acting to prevent an environmental harm. Quite simply, our aim is to take all reasonable precautions to reduce or eliminate the exposure of Canadians to toxic substances.

Bill C-32 will impose new deadlines for the development of preventative or control actions. It will require the Minister of the Environment to propose concrete actions to prevent or control the release of substances within two years of declaring a substance toxic. These preventative or control actions must be finalized within the following 18 months. These are the kinds of checks and balances we must have and they are the kinds of checks and balances that the Liberal government puts forward.

The goal of virtual elimination is a new term to the CEPA. The Government of Canada recognized in its 1995 toxic substances management policy that our traditional approach of managing the release of toxic substances into the environment through their life cycle is not sufficient in the environment today. Toxic substances that require stricter management actions result primarily from human activity. They persist in the environment for long periods of time and are referred to as bioaccumulative. They are toxins that are stored in living tissues. Quantities of these substances may build over time to levels that have serious, long term adverse effects to the environment and to human health. Once in the environment—

[Volunteers, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a group of volunteers leading a relief effort for the Kosovo refugees, the likes of which we have not witnessed in many years.

These volunteers from Angus, Ontario have been working diligently for many weeks collecting enormous quantities of clothing, toys and much needed goods. When I visited their facilities this past Saturday I was astounded at the mountains of donated goods I witnessed. These great Canadians have collected an amazing 40 tractor-trailer loads of goods.

On behalf of my colleagues I want to congratulate Rita and Dan Heffernan, Tamara and Larry Culham, Carmen Angus, Bill Dunkley, Vera McIntosh, Shirley and Bill Coleski, Teha and Tasha Brown, Ralph Hodsdon, Janet Dalton, Suzanne Finck, Lori Ignatov, Thea Lavoie, George Nitsche, members of the St. John Ambulance corps and cadets, and the 2408 Base Borden army cadets.

They make us all proud to be Canadians.

[Reform Party Of Canada, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week Reform members stood in the House making accusations about members' commitment to acting in an ethical manner. It begs the question: Does Reform believe all its members act in a completely ethical manner?

I would like to remind Reform members of a few facts; things like a bingo parlour in Rockcliff, chauffeur driven limousines and thousand dollar suits. Perhaps their leader does not receive the same scrutiny they place on others.

Imagine, driving around in an old wreck of a car with Canadian flags painted on the sides and physically intimidating members of the House.

I would suggest that if Reform members were to clean up their own act first, they might find this would go a long way to raising the level of respect politicians receive in the country.

I am reminded of an old adage: “You shouldn't throw rocks if you live in a glass house”. I think Canadians are witnessing the shattering breakup of the Reform glass house.

Seeing as Reform members are experiencing such difficulty in putting forward a united ethical front, it may in fact be a good idea for them to pursue a united alternative front. Call it what they may, it is still shameful.

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

By the way, they support tied selling.

When we are dealing with a topic such as this, all of a sudden they detract from the important and critical issue of the finances of Canadians and go to the ethics of cabinet and the ethics of the Prime Minister. They will not talk about their own ethics. I put a question very—

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to know that you are approaching this in a fair manner, unlike perhaps some of my hon. colleagues across the floor.

The topic at hand was tied selling which is of concern to Canadians across the country. We are sitting here discussing tied selling. It is a very relevant subject for the House to be discussing. However, once again when we have an issue at hand that is of concern to Canadians all across the country—

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was under the impression that the hon. member was bringing forward a motion with respect to finance. I am curious—