House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was farmers.

Last in Parliament September 2021, as Liberal MP for Malpeque (P.E.I.)

Won his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Division No. 454 May 25th, 1999

Madam Speaker, as I answered previously, we are pleased to see that the member opposite shares our concerns and the minister's concerns over fish habitat.

He mentioned about being cautious. If there is one thing the minister has clearly shown, it is that he has made some tough decisions in terms of protecting fish and fish habitat. He will continue to do that.

In terms of the specifics of this case, the recent issuance of an exploratory licence for the Cape Breton block, it is important to recognize that this is not a blanket approval for future oil and gas activities. The licence only confers the right to explore the lands covered by the licence, drill and test for petroleum and obtain a production licence in respect of those lands.

Each exploration project proposal under this licence will have to undergo an environmental assessment and will have to be approved by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

Due to the concerns that have been identified in the Cape Breton block, the board has decided to put a six months hold on any exploration activities so that additional discussions and environmental analyses can be carried out.

A strategic environmental assessment is currently being done for the Cape Breton block in order to identify and provide an initial evaluation of the issues on which future project specific assessments completed by the industry should focus.

During 1999 research will be carried out on the effects of seismic exploration on the east coast fishery through support from the environmental sciences research fund. In addition, the role of Canada-Nova Scotia Petroleum Board in regulating the petroleum industry in—

Fisheries And Oceans May 14th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore shares our interest in protecting fish habitat.

The fact is that the part of the sea in question will be subject to an environmental assessment under the direction of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. DFO was on the fisheries advisory committee and will be assessing it.

The member also should be informed that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board Fisheries Advisory Committee has requested a six month delay. That time should be used to good advantage by fishermen, DFO and others to ensure that the habitat is protected.

Division No. 424 May 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, we would not expect a love-in from the hon. member opposite but we certainly would like him to get his facts straight. He is considerably wrong on some of his facts this evening.

I will deal first with the high-grading of northern shrimp. There is no question the department is concerned about this practice which is illegal and wastes shrimp. As a result the minister announced increased observer coverage and comparisons of observed and unobserved catches in the inshore fishery. That is a practice that has been going on. There is greater evidence that kind of observer system works. It was talked about at committee the other day, I believe, by the minister.

This will provide better data on what is happening on the water and will allow the detection of violations. The auditor general, and I hope he is listening as well, commented positively on these measures as steps being taken by the department to better monitor the fishery and to better use observer data. That is a step forward.

The overriding concern of the minister is to conserve living marine resources and to ensure they are used in a sustainable manner. In all fisheries, decisions on quota levels are based on the best scientific information available. It is not just numbers of scientists. It is how that information is collected, how it is tabulated and how decisions are made. If this information is uncertain, we err on the side of caution, meaning that quotas might be set lower and additional conservation measures might be introduced.

Keep in mind that these are temporary allocations that are recommended and can be withdrawn when the science dictates otherwise.

Voisey's Bay Nickel Project April 29th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this motion, which was put forward by the member for St. John's West, regarding the proposed Voisey's Bay project.

This debate is timely in that a significant step was recently taken with the release on April 1 of the environmental assessment panel's report.

Before getting into the issue, there are a couple of points I want to make with respect to the remarks made by the Reform member for Edmonton—Strathcona. He spoke disparagingly about some of the programs which the Government of Canada has in place in the province of Newfoundland. He spoke about the TAGS program, for instance. The TAGS program, the Atlantic groundfish strategy, was put in place to help people in their time of need. We were there for the people of Newfoundland as a result of the downturn in the cod fishery.

He also spoke about the seal hunt. I really do not know what his point was on that, other than he was flopping around like a seal on the ice and he would not know the difference between a codfish and a seal if he saw one.

I believe it is important to review the historical context of this project so that we can more fully appreciate the present situation and some of the complexities that still lie ahead. However, before I begin I would like to preface my remarks with a couple of points.

First, the Government of Canada's position regarding the Voisey's Bay project is that this is a matter to be resolved between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the manager of the mineral resource, and the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, which is the firm proposing to develop the project.

However, I would like to emphasize that while it is up to the province and the company to negotiate a mutually beneficial outcome, the federal government strongly supports all positive endeavours to this end and looks forward to its successful completion.

The second point I would like to make is that the Government of Canada is heavily involved in native land claim negotiations across the country and is doing everything in its power to resolve all such claims as expeditiously as possible. The Government of Canada is committed to the land claims negotiations in Labrador and to a fair and equitable process and outcome. These talks have their own pace and the government does not want to jeopardize them by attempting to advance them beyond that pace.

The project we are addressing today concerns a mine and a mill near Voisey's Bay on the northern coast of Labrador. This is a rugged area, with rough terrain and a sub-Arctic climate of short summers and long winters, which was a point made by the member for St. John's West earlier. It is located between the Inuit community of Nain and the Innu community known as Davis Inlet. The area is the subject of overlapping land claims on the part of the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation. The land holds an estimated 150 million tonnes of ore containing nickel, copper and cobalt.

Minerals were first discovered in this vicinity in 1993 by a company called Archean, which was under contract to Diamond Fields Resources Incorporated. Two years later, in 1995 and 1996, Inco Limited purchased the area in two stages for $4.3 billion.

The Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, an Inco subsidiary, has proposed to develop a nickel, copper and cobalt mine and mill in the area. The nickel concentrate from the mill would be sent elsewhere for processing.

In November 1996 the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company announced that it had chosen Argentia, Newfoundland as the site for a smelter and refinery complex. The company estimated that the two sites together would create 3,500 direct and indirect jobs in the province, and that we all certainly would welcome.

On January 31, 1997 the four principal parties involved in the Voisey's Bay project, that is, the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation, signed a memorandum of understanding to establish the environmental review process. Under the MOU a five person environmental assessment panel was appointed. The panel held two rounds of public consultations over the next year and a half. The first round began that spring. The second round of consultations took place in the fall of 1998, from September 9 to November 6. The company was also at those hearings to explain the project and to respond to any concerns and questions raised by participants.

During the period between the two rounds of consultations several events took place that had a significant impact on the project's negotiations and progress.

In August 1997 the Newfoundland court of appeal issued a temporary injunction blocking the company from building a temporary road and airstrip that would allow it to begin underground exploration. The next month the company announced that it was delaying the Voisey's Bay start-up date, which had originally been scheduled for late 1999, by at least one year. Three days later, on September 22, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland stipulated that the road and airstrip were an integral part of the mine and that the company must refrain from any underground exploration until it had received environmental clearance.

In the spring of 1998 the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments put forward by the Citizens Mining Council of Newfoundland and Labrador that the project's environmental assessment should include both Voisey's Bay and Argentia sites. On March 8 of this year the court ruled that the law did not impose a duty in the circumstances of this case to include the two projects in one environmental assessment. This decision served to remove any uncertainty over the environmental assessment process for the two sites.

As well, Newfoundland rejected the new proposal of Inco on the ground that it was not of sufficient benefit to the province. It took the position that the project would not proceed unless all of the ore was processed within provincial boundaries and that the company's investment must include a smelter at Argentia in order to maximize the number of jobs for Newfoundland and Labrador citizens.

On July 23, 1998 Newfoundland suspended negotiations. A few days later the company halted its engineering and procurement activities relating to construction.

While these events were going on, parallel talks were also taking place with the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation. The negotiations were being conducted separately with each of the two native groups. I would like to emphasize that these organizations, as well as other aboriginal groups, have been an integral part of the environmental assessment process.

Negotiations with the two aboriginal groups are continuing. The federal government is strongly committed to forging new partnerships with native peoples. It is through the successful negotiation of major projects such as Voisey's Bay that the government will build and maintain such partnerships.

I repeat, therefore, that the Government of Canada is strongly committed to a fair and equitable process and outcome. It is making every effort in its power to achieve such a result as soon as possible.

Despite the sometimes rocky road behind us, I am happy to report that events have in the past few months taken a much more positive turn. On February 10, 1999 the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador indicated his willingness to renew talks with Voisey's Bay Nickel Company after the company said that it too hoped to resume negotiations. The four MOU parties have since held discussions and have reached a preliminary agreement on a broad framework for future consultations. I understand that formal consultations are expected to begin on May 3, 1999.

Also, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the environmental assessment panel released its report on April 1, 1999. This represents a significant milestone. The Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as native groups, are now in the process of reviewing the report.

I conclude by stating the government's view that a positive spirit of co-operation on the part of all parties will ensure that everyone concerned achieves mutually beneficial results from this impressive project.

Hepatitis C April 27th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the member opposite not have to be on topic? I think he must be dreaming that he was in the Liberal caucus when he was in the Reform caucus when all these members were tuned up for their indiscretions.

Aboriginal Affairs April 27th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, maybe if the member had not spoken in such a gravelly voice yesterday we would have understood him more clearly.

On this particular issue we are trying to work with the band in a non-confrontational manner. We are investigating the matter of the gravel. If charges should be laid, they will be laid. It is under investigation.

Irving Whale April 26th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, yes, the minister and the department are very aware of the decision. There should be no impact on the export of products. Three options were considered in terms of the decision. When the decision was made we took into consideration full safety factors so that there would be no damage to any fish stocks in the area.

Fisheries And Oceans April 26th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, it would be inappropriate for me to speak to a case that is before the courts. However, I can tell the member that the minister is looking very closely at the sealing issue. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is looking at the issue. Any decisions that we make on that issue in the future will be based on good scientific advice.

Fisheries And Oceans April 26th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, because this issue is before the courts it would be improper for me to speak to it.

Fisheries And Oceans April 23rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics of that particular case. I do know that we are increasing enforcement officers in some areas and trying to ensure that the fishery is there for the future.

I will check into the specifics of that case and get back to the member.