Paul Bonwick

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, these types of shenanigans my Reform colleagues are pulling are completely disrespectful of this House. They too should be completely ashamed of the tactics they use. They are not only embarrassing themselves but they are embarrassing their constituents. I suggest they reflect on their actions.

As I mentioned, the comments directed at our minister of agriculture and our prime minister are completely unacceptable. Again, the member should be extremely ashamed of himself.

He was asking some pointed questions with regard to why the minister of agriculture was not overseeing the Canadian Wheat Board discussions, the same questions he asked at committee. He received completely detailed and very acceptable answers. Then he brings those questions to the House for no more reason than grandstanding and insulting members when he knows they are not here to defend themselves.

The Canadian Wheat Board is good for farmers. The inclusion clause is good for farmers, despite what these colleagues across the floor are saying.

On that note, I request a answer from the member for Brandon—Souris. Are we not entitled to discuss issues relevant to Canada in an industry which encompasses $6 billion dollars or should we just sit here and remain quite?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address remarks by two members opposite.

First to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris regarding his comments, I found them rather insulting and borderline prejudice. For him to suggest for one moment that as members of Parliament we are not supposed to deal with national issues, with a $6 billion industry that this government backs and because we are from one specific area or another, those comments are nothing more than prejudice. Absolutely unacceptable.

With regard to his comments of inclusion, as a new member of this committee I did listen. I listened to my Reform colleagues. I listened to the witnesses and I listened to Conservative colleagues. Unlike the member for Brandon—Souris, I took back some of the answers the people had given me. There was a very simple statement made. What was best for the farmers was inclusion. That is why it is there, not specific special interests groups that do not necessarily represent certain numbers of farmers. That is what is best for the farmers. That is why it stands.

With regard to the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, he should hang his head in shame. He should be embarrassed for the comments he made. To insult the minister of agriculture completely unacceptable. To sit here and question the integrity of the prime minister is also unacceptable, likely one of the respected politicians in the entire world and certainly in Canada. Those types of statements are completely unacceptable in this House.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, before I direct a question to the hon. member from the Bloc I want to say that I was very shocked to hear about the promises my Reform colleagues made. They made promises to the Canadian people about what they would or would not do with the GST. How many times have they changed their minds just because of the political tide?

I suggest once and for all that they come out with a solid position, quit changing their minds and quit being hypocritical with the Canadian people.

Once again Bloc members are crying. They are holding their hands out to the Government of Canada, “please give us billions of dollars”.

The question they should answer for themselves is whether it is fair for Canadians to pay Quebeckers $2 billion, for that matter even one penny. There has been no loss established. In fact, there has been a gain. I think members should ask themselves is it fair. I think not. It is hypocrisy. The answer will be somewhat from a spoiled child. Is the answer fair? I say no, it is hypocritical.

[Reform Party, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks I have listened to my Reform colleagues make accusations about financial contributors to my party. I listened to them challenge the credibility of the prime minister, who happens to be the most respected politician in Canada. I have also listened to my Reform colleagues tell the government that it needs to take advice from western mining consortiums.

Reform members tell us to listen to western mining companies when setting targets for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. They tell us to listen to these mining companies regarding the transition of authority of the Mackenzie River Valley.

Fund-raising, mining. Fund-raising, mining.

I wonder if Canadians realize that many thousands of dollars donated to the Leader of the Opposition came directly from these same mining companies. Talk about representing a special interest group.

Reformers should be ashamed. There is no end to their hypocrisy.

[Reform Party Of Canada, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by telling you how proud I was the first day I sat in the House. I felt that regardless of my party my colleagues and I were here to create laws and directions for Canada. We would make Canada a better place for all Canadians regardless of religion or region.

I was and am excited at this prospect. Often I disagree with my colleagues in opposition. However I believe they are expressing their hearts in a way they feel is best for their constituents and in most cases Canada. I commend them.

Recently I have become disillusioned at the actions of the Reform Party. Enough is enough. Reform members continue to describe in graphic detail the most heinous of crimes for no other reason than grandstanding. I say shame.

I remind my colleagues that expressing the details of tragic violent acts on national TV only makes the victims relive these atrocities over again. Exploiting people's tragedy only hurts the victims.

Canadians will not take it any more. The Reform Party and their leader should be ashamed.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely amazed at some of the comments by the hon. member across the floor. His statements are completely inaccurate and the member knows it. He is twisting the truth. It is nothing more than twisting the truth and making inaccurate statements.

I am curious if in fact he returned his rebate cheque as he professes to be such a champion of justice.

I just did a quick calculation based on his $75 average donation to the Reform Party. It would have taken about 4,000 contributors of the Reform Party simply to pay for the Leader of the Opposition's suits. Do not call the kettle black. Those people are not being truthful with us.

[Tourism, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for my first S.O. 31 statement I would like to concentrate on the importance of the tourism industry and the role it is playing in my riding.

The riding of Simcoe—Grey is one of the most beautiful areas in Canada. It offers the majestic Niagara escarpment rolling down into the pristine waters of Georgian Bay. With areas like Wasaga Beach, home of the world's largest freshwater beach, and Collingwood's beautiful turn of the century main street, it is a tourist's dream.

Tourism is a significant and vital component of the Simcoe—Grey economy. It is a major job creator and a great many small businesses depend on tourism for their livelihood.

I am proud of the initiatives brought forward by the government to assist in the continued development of the tourism industry. I am proud of the great strides made within the tourism industry within our riding.

I encourage all Canadians to come and visit my riding and see the many splendours it has to offer.

[Speech From The Throne, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of commitment to democracy. He is committed to the democratic process or he states so. The hon. member seems very focused on protecting democracy. If he is telling the truth, I ask will he break ranks with his party and respect the majority of Quebeckers as they demonstrated in the last referendum? Democracy has spoken, sir, will you listen?

[Fire Prevention, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, none of us expect when we start out each day that our homes or offices might be destroyed by fire. Yet it was on a busy day much like this 81 years ago that our predecessors in the House of Commons found themselves in the heart of an inferno.

On February 4, 1916 Canada lost its original Parliament Buildings to a horrific destructive fire. That tragic event serves as a reminder that fire can strike any time, anywhere and no one is immune to it.

From October 5 to October 11 Canada will observe fire prevention week to remind Canadians of the danger of fire, to promote fire prevention and to honour the dedicated firefighters across this country who risk their lives for the safety of others.

Each year in Canada fire claims hundreds of lives and incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The latest statistics for 1995 show that 62,346 fires resulted in 389 deaths, 3,792 injuries and a direct property loss of over $1 billion—

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member got his wish. There was not too much heckling.

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your recent appointment.

I would encourage the member over the next four or five years to do what is best for his riding, and that is to offer proactive, positive comments and suggestions on how we can make Canada better. He should not join the ranks of his fellow Reformers who constantly run a negative campaign, such as the one he demonstrated in his opening remarks.

Over the past couple of days I have heard my Reform colleagues consistently speak of open reform, public involvement, let the people make the decisions, referendum, referendum, referendum. I find it a very noble statement to make on the surface. However, I find it somewhat deceiving to make that statement when in fact they are suggesting that these referenda have to be somewhat selective. They need to choose which ones should be referenda and which should not, which ones need to have public debate and which ones do not.

I would ask the member if he is prepared to use that selective approach in deciding which ones he feels should have public involvement and which ones should not.