Peter Stoffer

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my, my, my. Listen to the Reform Party talk about unions.

Being a labour activist for many years and being part of the Canadian auto workers for the last 18 years, I have to say that I take offence with the Reform Party when it says that unions are not democratic. The fact is they are probably the most democratic organizations in this country, if not more so than this House.

I have worked with them. I can guarantee that the CLC for example which covers 2.3 million unionized workers is the most democratic organization in this country. If members do not believe that, I encourage them to spend a weekend with unionized workers to understand exactly what is going wrong.

One of the most offensive things that happens to bargaining and to unionized people is when employers have the right to scab labour. The member was talking about the fact that unions make unreasonable demands but she does not mention the fact that some employers make unreasonable demands on their labourers.

We have to argue this point in light of both facts. When we go to arbitration or any kind of labour relations, which I have done for many years, the use of scab labour, the threat of scab labour and the threat of back to work legislation deflate rank and file workers. It is unacceptable that scab labour is still allowed. My party and I would definitely vote for any legislation that outlaws the use of scab labour or forced back to work legislation.

In my most humble opinion anything that would violate a union is the Reform Party. We are the only federal party in the House with a staff that is unionized, has an association and bargains for its rights in Ottawa. No other official party in the House allows its staff to organize or unionize. We encourage our staff to organize and unionize under an umbrella.

I would love to see the Reform Party encourage its staff to do the same so its staff can argue in balance for fair wages and fair compensation.

[Business Of The House, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus my attention this evening on the government's failed strategy of quiet diplomacy to resolve the Pacific salmon treaty dispute and the recent resignation of Canada's tough talking and well respected chief negotiator, Yves Fortier.

Throughout the dispute, Mr. Fortier has forcefully and eloquently articulated the concerns of Canadian fishermen. He has asserted three points over and over again which the Prime Minister and the minister of fisheries have failed to listen to.

Mr. Fortier's three points were that the Americans were overfishing Canadian salmon stocks which violates the equity principle of the treaty, that the Canada-U.S. stakeholder process is doomed to fail because U.S. states and Indian or aboriginal tribes have no interest in agreeing in a reduction of a catch of Canadian bound salmon, and that the U.S. and Canadian governments must resolve the dispute at the senior political level, a tete-a-tete between the Prime Minister and president. It is time to call in the so-called A team.

The report of special envoys Ruckelshaus and Strangway backs Mr. Fortier on these three points. Why did Mr. Fortier resign if the Ruckelshaus-Strangway report vindicated everything that he had been saying for the past four years as Canada's chief negotiator?

In his letter of resignation, Mr. Fortier outlined two paths the Canadian government could take to resolve the dispute. Ottawa could demand international arbitration and lobby Washington vigorously to impose a compromise on U.S. stakeholders, or Ottawa could weaken its demands and essentially sell out the fishermen to calm the waters between Ottawa and Washington.

Is it true that Mr. Fortier resigned because Ottawa decided on the second path, to sacrifice Canadian fishermen for the sake of warmer relations with Washington? Rumours are circulating on the west coast that the U.S. state department refused to continue negotiations if Mr. Fortier remained as Canada's chief negotiator. Could the minister confirm that the state department did ask for Mr. Fortier's resignation and, if it did, why did the Canadian government capitulate to American demands?

As the Canadian government calms the waters between Ottawa and Washington through quiet diplomacy, a storm is brewing off the B.C. coast. This summer the estimated average catch will only be 50 to 100 sockeye per boat on the north coast. There is also a major crisis with Skeena River coho, stocks that the Alaskans have been overfishing for years. There is a desperate situation developing in the B.C. coastal communities.

When will the Prime Minister demand that President Clinton sit down to resolve the dispute? When will the government assert itself to protect the interests of Canadian fishermen and demand that the Americans put conservation first?

Last summer the minister of fisheries talked of quiet diplomacy, that he could do nothing to stop American fishing except talk nice. As a result Canadian fishermen became desperate, backed into a corner by Alaskan overfishing and disastrous federal fishing policies that have left many almost bankrupt. These fishermen then engaged in some gumboot diplomacy of their own, blockading the U.S. ferry Malaspina to stop the overfishing.

When will the government learn that selling out Canadian fishermen to placate Washington will only cause more conflict and more pain for B.C. coastal communities and salmon fishermen?

When will the Prime Minister find the backbone to stand up to President Clinton and demand his country live up to its obligations under the international treaty?

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

We did.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If Hansard will show he used unparliamentary language against me, I would like him to apologize before this House.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate on behalf of the NDP to the parliamentary secretary that if he does not like democracy, he should think of another line of work.

The bill has very good merit but that is not what upsets us. The fact is that amendments were made in the Senate where senators are appointed and not elected. That is why we voted to adjourn today. If the member does not like democracy in action, that is just too bad.

[National Defence, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Mac Campbell, former director general of management review systems with DND in Goose Bay, has cashed in and is now working for SERCO, the British firm now handling the contract for alternative service delivery. It seems some people are getting rich off ASD, but it is not the front line workers in Goose Bay who will see their wages slashed from $13 to just over $6.

Will the government admit today that the savings from alternative service delivery are coming on the backs of everyday Canadians? Will it also admit that opportunities for Liberal policies are only open to those with Liberal politics?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking this question for the third time today. I know from talking to Liberal backbenchers behind the curtain that many of them are opposing this bank merger. With great respect, does the hon. member oppose the merger of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be quite simple and quite plain. My wife is an independent business person and works very hard at what she does. I just want to ask one simple question. Since the Royal Bank was brought in by the member's Liberal colleagues, does she or does she not agree with the proposed bank merger between the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for the member. Does he agree with his party leader that the banks should merge? Is it okay for foreign banking competition to come into the country carte blanche?

This has to be the first time a western populist party has sided with the interests of big banks from Toronto over the interests of small businesses in their own communities.

Would the member explain why the Reform Party has been so ready to betray its populist routes in this case? Could it be that the Reform Party is now so interested in winning votes in Ontario that it is ready to support Bay Street over Main Street in its own communities?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill that will affect the accessibility of small and medium size business to financing from commercial banks.

The proposed merger of the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank also threatens to have a huge and negative impact on the accessibility to financing by small business across Canada. I wish to ask the member what he thinks about the three following questions: Does he believe that the merger would benefit small businesses in his riding? Does he agree with the Minister of Finance that the entry of more foreign banks into the Canadian market would make the mega merger acceptable? Does he think the Minister of Finance should say no to the merger right now?