Paul Bonwick

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of ethics, of his request and of the defeat of his bill last night. The very fact that he is making suggestions in the House that either individuals or the government itself are not abiding by a strict rule of ethics, whether it be on paper or whether it be in the heart, is profoundly sad.

My question falls in line with the word “ethics”, which he has been tossing around in the House. Would he stand up in the House today and clearly state that he feels all the members within his Reform caucus act in a very ethical manner when they provide the services they were elected to provide, keeping in mind the commitments of his leader on things like Stornoway, chauffeur driven cars, clothing expenses and so on? I wonder if he would take a moment to reflect on his own party's ethics or lack thereof.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I believe the language the hon. member is using is not parliamentary in nature. He is suggesting that a member of the House is not telling the truth. I would ask perhaps that the hon. member retract his statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to offer my appreciation to my colleagues who have taken the time out this evening to speak to something that I feel is a critical and significant issue for the federal government to deal with. To the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment I offer my sincere appreciation not just for tonight but for the information that she has shared back and forth with me over the past number of weeks.

I made some notes as I was listening to the presenters from the various parties this evening. The fact of the matter is that we all want the same desired result. It is just that the means appear to be somewhat different.

There was some talk of constitutionality and whether it would be upheld. When I started out on this process with my private member's bill, one of the first things I did was forward it to the House legal advisers for their opinion. They gave it a thumbs up from a constitutionality standpoint if in fact there were any challenges.

With respect to a couple of my colleagues passing responsibility down to provincial ministries or regional governments, I would not and could not support that. I believe the environment is a federal responsibility. Whether it be through regulatory process or through education and buy-in programs, the environment is a responsibility for all Canadians and not simply one sector within the country. To detract from that we would in turn be doing a disservice to the various regions in the country that did not identify this as a necessary priority.

One of the things I found as I was chatting with constituents in my riding, as well as from the phone calls I received, was that it was difficult for people to appreciate the size and scope of the problem because they are so small. As they hold a half a dozen split-shots or bell sinkers in their hand they ask what is the big deal. As many of my well informed colleagues have identified this evening, we are talking about 500 tonnes per year.

I was doing some quick math and thinking to myself how best to describe it other than stating that we would have to line up 2,000 half ton trucks in a row, loaded to capacity, in order to accommodate the amount of lead sinkers and jigs that are dumped into Canadian waters and rivers every year. That is the best example to typify the problem we are dealing with and the type of buy-in.

There has been concern from my Conservative colleague as to which particular section or ministry should be enforcing this endeavour. Once again I bow to the Minister of Environment and suggest that this is within her purview and not necessarily that of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Regardless of what enforcement regime we put in place, the eventual elimination of lead sinkers and jigs in Canadian waters can only be successful if we have Canadians buying into it. All the regulations, all the authorities, everything we put in place can only be successful if we embark on a good education program, if we have good fact based research in place and we concentrate our efforts.

It is my hope that tonight's debate and the sharing of information, as well as the work that has been done over the past several months, will only heighten the level of awareness on this issue.

I am proud to have the opportunity as the member of parliament for Simcoe—Grey to bring forward an initiative that two people within in my riding started four or five years ago. It gives me an overwhelming sense of pride to be able to share a message with all Canadians that one or two people can make a difference. If people have concerns regarding the environment or any other matter, they should bring them forward because there is an opportunity to make change.

I am convinced that through the commitment of the Ministry of Environment, the Minister of Environment, the parliamentary secretary and all other parties that have spoken this evening that there is a common desire and goal. I have no doubt in my mind that whether it is in the short or the long term lead sinkers and jigs will be eliminated from Canadian waters.

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

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.

[Petitions, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as a proactive Liberal, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table a petition signed by constituents of the riding of Simcoe—Grey, as well as concerned Canadians from across our country.

The petitioners are all automotive technicians who are employed at car dealerships. As a condition of employment they are required to purchase and maintain several thousand dollars worth of automotive tools. At the present time their professional tool investment and expenditures are non-tax deductible and, unlike other professions which require similar expenditures, do not generate any tax credits.

Therefore the petitioners request that parliament readdress this taxation policy, amending the applicable legislation to allow current and future technicians to deduct their investment in automotive repair tools.

[Petitions, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table a petition signed by my constituents of Simcoe—Grey as well as concerned Canadians from all across our country.

These individuals are automotive technicians employed at car dealerships. As a condition of their employment they are required to purchase and maintain several thousand dollars worth of automotive tools. At the present time their professional tool investment and expenditures are not tax deductible, unlike many other professions that require similar expenditures.

These tool purchases do not generate any extra tax credits and therefore the petitioners request that parliament redress this taxation policy, amending the applicable legislation to allow current and future technicians to deduct their investment in automotive repair tools.

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our finance minister and in fact all Canadians for this good news budget and their extraordinary achievement of turning our country's economic fortunes around.

However at this time I want to expand upon the comments made by the leader of the Reform Party and further introduce his cast of characters for the Robin Hood story.

They are the member for Wild Rose as Friar Tuck; the member for Langley—Abbotsford as Little John; the member for Edmonton North as Maid Marian; the member for Medicine Hat as Robin Hood; and lastly, the member for Calgary Southwest as the true Sheriff of Nottingham.

This band of miserable marauders have nothing more to offer than silly anecdotes. Once again Canadians see the Reform members for what they truly are, a bunch of medieval morons so entrenched in the past—

[Petitions, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my aunt did not sign this petition, either, but it is one for automotive tool mechanics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I table a petition signed by constituents of Simcoe—Grey as well as concerned Canadians from all across the country.

The petition deals with the tool tax credit presently non-existent on tool purchases for automotive mechanics. At the present time unlike many other professions they are not able to receive a federal tax credit for them.

Therefore the petitioners request that parliament redress this taxation policy, amending the applicable legislation to allow current and future technicians to deduct their investment in automotive repair tools.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a petition signed by the constituents of Simcoe—Grey and concerned Canadians from across this great country. These individuals are all automotive technicians employed by car dealerships. As a condition of their employment they are required to purchase and maintain several thousand dollars worth of automotive tools.

At the present time their professional tool investments and expenditures are non-tax deductible. Unlike other professions which require similar expenditures, they do not generate any tax credits.

Therefore the petitioners request that parliament redress this taxation policy, amending the applicable legislation to allow current and future technicians to deduct their investment in their automotive tools.

[Simcoe—Grey, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make you, our Prime Minister, my colleagues in the House and in fact all of Canada aware of one of the greatest economic opportunities in industry.

The opportunity I speak of is Simcoe—Grey. Simcoe—Grey is situated in the most beautiful part of southwestern Ontario and indeed all of Canada. We are strategically located within a two hour drive of well over 10 million people.

We also have access to a variety of university and college campuses. These facts, coupled with a group of mayors and councillors that are willing to work with business, make my riding an ideal investment opportunity.

I ask industry officials to think of the potential: the third largest market area in North America, skilled labour pools, open for business attitude and a quality of life second to none.

On behalf of the residents of Simcoe—Grey I say please visit our riding. We are open for business.