Peter Stoffer

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listen very intently when Reform talks about more enforcement on the streets in order to make our streets safer. I certainly do not want to debate that aspect with him but last night 60 Minutes had a very good show on about enforcement and what to do with young people and young offenders when they are behind the system.

I keep hearing the hon. member say that more money should be spent on enforcement but would he not believe, or would he not be at least corrected, that actually more enforcement is just sort of the other approach to it and really more resources should be put into the education of young people so that they do not commit these crimes to which he is referring?

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I first of all wish to convey to the House that a very good maritimer just stood and gave a speech. We know he is not feeling very well today and our party gives credit to him for hanging in there and being a real trooper.

My question is with regard to the pay scales of judges in those positions. Would he not agree, being in support of the bill, that other people in other aspects of the public service such as PSAC workers should be seriously looked at for pay increases too? They have been waiting an awful long time for pay increases as well.

[Petitions, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition to the House concerning the MAI.

The petitioners indicate that the most recent draft of the MAI, if adopted, will have a major impact on many important areas of Canadian life, including environmental protection, employment, wage levels, social programs and culture. They also note that little information on the MAI has been provided by the government and that little public discussion about the treaty has yet taken place.

They also request that parliament impose a moratorium on the ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians will have an opportunity to express their opinions on the MAI.

[National Defence Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the fact that military personnel in this country are severely underpaid. My riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore has a large military air base and naval base called Shearwater. I was at a dinner the other day with the commander of the base. We were discussing the very same concern about the lack of attention that previous governments and current governments have given with respect to the pay for all ranks within the military.

There is one question I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Would he not agree that the military within Canada and the United States have a large attachment of civilian workers who work with them? I have yet to hear anyone from the Reform Party talk about the very serious cuts, not only to the civilian workers, but to the alternate service delivery and the effect they have on the workers who are currently there.

Many workers are losing their jobs. Goose Bay-Labrador is a prime example where people who have worked with the military for many years on a civilian basis are now being asked to take a 60% cut in pay and a different job classification.

I would like either the hon. member's personal comments or his party's comments on how they view alternate service delivery and the effect it has not only on civilian workers but on the military as well.

[National Defence Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have one question.

The hon. Reform member spoke about our friendly relations with the Americans. Would he agree that sometimes that relationship gets a little too friendly?

I am talking about the used MOX fuel we are importing from the United States along our rails and roads into our Chalk River facility. Most Canadians were unaware that this was happening. The member may be aware that a lot of environmentalists and groups are very concerned about a possible accident which may occur and what it could mean to the Canadian public.

Would he agree that we should stop these shipments of used plutonium and MOX fuels into Canada?

[Division No. 118, March 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary of fisheries and oceans is quite clear. He was on our west coast tour with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when we toured the west communities to find out exactly what is going on out there and why there is so much distrust between the communities that are involved in fishing activities and that of the DFO and of the current minister.

That is why I asked a question on behalf of west coast fishers and I will repeat that question. I will give it a little preamble after that as well.

My question was quite straightforward. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated to our committee that there is no 12 mile protection zone around Langara Island on B.C.'s west coast from commercial trawlers. He definitely stated there was no protection zone around that island. However, DFO documents clearly state otherwise.

The minister also stated that one should never give allocation of quota from one sector of the fishing industry to another. You should never to do that. This is exactly what has happened when DFO cut off the chinook salmon to B.C. trawlers and fishers and gave it to the Sport Fishing Institute. Ms. Velma McColl, who once worked for the Sport Fishing Institute and lobbied very hard, is now the minister's assistance in British Columbia.

My question was straightforward. Why does this government allow DFO to have a policy that helps the minister's friends in British Columbia and not that of west coast fishers?

We have a crisis in B.C. with our coho stocks and that many thousands of B.C. fishers are now going to be facing unemployment and tragedy in their coastal communities. These people who are watching now have a right to an answer and I would like that answer as clear, concise and transparent as possible.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am proud to present five petitions against the MAI. I am especially proud to present a petition which comes from Calgary.

The petitioners say that the MAI is anti-democratic in so far as it would be binding for 20 years, thus tying the hands of several Parliaments and future governments.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the current framework of the MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek an entirely different agreement which would achieve a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in the public interest.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.

Last month the government received the post-TAGS review known as the Harrigan report which recommended a successor program for the Atlantic groundfish strategy. The fisheries and oceans committee recommended the government continue TAGS until May 1999 and endorsed a new federally funded multi-year infrastructure and job diversification program.

Can the finance minister tell the people of Atlantic Canada if he will make sufficient funds available to finance the recommendations contained in these two reports?

[Canadian Film Industry, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tonight Atom Egoyan's film The Sweet Hereafter will be considered for not one but two academy awards.

My New Democrat colleagues and I believe the Canadian film industry is essential to our unity as a country and to our sense of ourselves as Canadians.

We understand that without the support of public grants, many of these films could not be made.

Mr. Egoyan has thanked the Canadian public for supporting his work.

However, I believe we should not be surprised if this government is not included in his anticipated acceptance speech. It is this Liberal government that has systematically cut the support of Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board to the tune of $109 million.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party and citizens of Canada, best wishes tonight to Atom Egoyan and The Sweet Hereafter .

[Petitions, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present three petitions with regard to the MAI which the Government of Canada is currently negotiating. It is an international trade agreement of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris called the multilateral agreement on investment.

The petitioners note that the MAI is the latest in a series of regional and global agreements which, in the name of liberalization, trade and investment, expands the powers of multinational corporations at the expense of the powers of government to intervene in the marketplace on behalf of our social, cultural, environmental and health care goals; that the MAI is fundamentally flawed in so far as it seeks to protect the rights of investors without seeking similar protection for workers through binding core labour standards; and that the MAI is anti-democratic in so far as it would be binding for 20 years, thus tying the hands of several parliaments and future governments.

Therefore, we petition Parliament to reject the current framework of the MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek—