Svend Robinson

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, over two months ago I rose in the House to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerning the devastating plight of B.C. fishers and coastal communities.

I asked the minister what leadership he was prepared to show to assist fishers who lost their jobs, their livelihoods and in many cases their hope as a result of the impact of the Mifflin plan.

At that time over two months ago the minister said that the member should be patient. The patience of British Columbians has run out. The hopes of British Columbians, particularly in coastal communities and particularly fishers, are fast running out.

Just this week we heard from the daughter of one of those fishers. She is a 13 year old girl named Julie Nygren whose father and mother have been involved in fishing for many years. She says:

It's hard to understand why our government won't stand up to the Americans and tell them it isn't fair to take our salmon.

Referring to the minister she says:

It seems that he isn't doing enough for B.C., or for Canada. He's almost on the American side.

I wonder where the minister is. He is from British Columbia, yet time and time again when it comes to speaking out for British Columbia too often he is attacking British Columbia, attacking the premier of British Columbia, and speaking up for the United States.

The Community Fisheries Development Centre has put a proposal before the government, before the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, urging an active labour market transition program to put the people who have lost their jobs as a result of the Mifflin plan back to work. It is not a TAGS program. It is an active labour market program to find training certification programs to get them involved in restoring habitat, for example.

Recently the federal auditor general pointed out that the federal fisheries department had been very lax in standing up for fisheries habitat. Instead of finger pointing I urge the government to come up with a program that gets the scientists to work together collaboratively, federally and provincially, to restore habitat and put people back to work.

I also appeal to the federal Liberal government, in addition to supporting the $375 million transition program, to take a strong and constructive stand on the ongoing concern around the salmon treaty. I appeal to the government to join the British Columbia lawsuit. B.C. fisheries minister Corky Evans has appealed to the federal government to stand up, get involved and speak out on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I note that the Government of Canada joined a lawsuit earlier on behalf of United States tribes. I wonder why it is that it is not prepared to do the same thing with respect to the people of British Columbia.

Finally, I appeal to the Government of Canada to speak out against the proposed seizure of fish boats by the Alaskans and to recognize that it would be a very destructive step at this very sensitive time when the eminent persons, Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr. Strangway, are attempting to arrive at a solution.

The stakeholder process has failed. What we need is political leadership at the highest possible level: the prime minister's office, the minister's office and the office of the president of the United States. We need strong transition programs but we also need a government that is prepared to stand up to ensure that the principles of the salmon treaty, particularly the equity principle, is respected and that B.C. coastal communities and fishers are able to live with dignity.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 4th, 1997]

With regard to the costs associated with destaffing lighthouses in British Columbia, could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please provide for the fiscal years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997 up to Octover 27, 1997, a complete accounting for all financial costs related to developing, putting in place and servicing the hardware infrastructure for the seven lighthouses the gouvernment has already destaffed in British Columbia?

[Division No. 48, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to take this opportunity on this amendment to reinforce the comments that were made by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre and other colleagues et aussi d'appuyer la motion de mes collègues du Bloc.

When we look at the whole history of the relationship between Canada Post and its employees, that relationship in many respects has been poisoned by the absolutely intolerable interference by this government in the collective bargaining process.

Look back, for example, at the nudge-nudge, wink-wink commitment that was made by the minister from Montreal who suggested to the Canadian Direct Marketing Association: “Do not worry about it. You will not have to worry. We will send them all back to work anyway.”

How could there be any good faith bargaining? How could there be any serious negotiation in those circumstances when the employer knows full well that all they have to do is just hold out and ultimately they will be sent back to work.

What is so outrageous about this legislation is that not only are they being sent back to work, not only is the collective bargaining process being completely subverted, but they are being sent back to work with conditions of employment that are less than the employer was even prepared to offer at an earlier stage of the collective bargaining process.

I just want to reinforce our concern. We are voting against this legislation because it represents not just an interference in the collective bargaining process. That is bad enough. But it demonstrates absolute contempt for the loyal and hard working men and women who are now working for the Canada Post corporation.

[Fisheries, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general placed the blame squarely on the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

B.C. fishers face Alaskan government threats in their legal action to seize their fish boats and effectively to destroy their livelihoods.

What specific action is he taking with respect to this very serious threat by the Alaskan government that would in effect destroy the livelihoods of B.C. fishers and will he join in the counter-suit of B.C. fishers against the illegal theft of salmon by the Alaskans?

[Fisheries, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The auditor general's report on the sustainability of the Pacific salmon resource base points to habitat destruction as a key factor contributing to the lower numbers of chinook and coho salmon returning to spawn in B.C. waters.

He claims the DFO has neglected its responsibility to monitor and review its policies for habitat conservation.

Will the minister inform the House why, despite warnings from an internal DFO audit in 1994, the government has failed to ever monitor and review its own habitat policy?

[Human Rights, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one of the leaders who was laughing at the prime minister's joke was genocidal President Suharto whose government recently threatened Indonesian participants at the APEC people's summit if they demonstrated against Suharto.

Did the prime minister raise this issue with Suharto, in between jokes of course, and what steps is our government taking to ensure the safety of Indonesians threatened by Suharto's repressive regime?

[Human Rights, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Earlier this week at the APEC summit the minister stated that to avoid irrelevance, the APEC agenda must include human rights.

Will this minister explain why the prime minister then knee-capped him yesterday by saying that the APEC agenda will never include human rights? Will the minister ask the prime minister to apologize to Canadians for his disgusting joke with APEC leaders about UBC students who were pepper sprayed while demonstrating for human rights in Indonesia, East Timor, China and other APEC countries?

[Foreign Affairs, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It concerns the upcoming APEC summit.

Section 19 of Canada's Immigration Act bars the admission of persons who are heads of a government that is or was engaged in gross human rights violations or crimes against humanity.

Will the minister explain why Indonesian President Suharto, guilty of genocidal policies in East Timor and massive human rights violations in Indonesia, is not being barred under the Immigration Act or charged with war crimes if he sets foot on Canadian territory?

[Fisheries, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the fisheries committee heard eloquent evidence from B.C. coastal communities and aboriginal people about the devastating socioeconomic impact of the Mifflin plan.

I want to ask a question of the Minister of Human Resources Development. The Community Fisheries Development Centre has prepared an excellent active labour market transition plan costing $375 million over three years. On the east coast fishery so far, $3.4 billion was spent. I want to ask the minister to finally meet with representatives from British Columbia who are here today. Will he support their proposal and not give us more rhetoric? What will he finally—

[Euthanasia, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on October 21, I asked a question in this House of the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning the upcoming peoples summit, specifically the concern that many delegates from APEC countries who wish to attend the peoples summit to speak on issues of fundamental human rights, the rights of workers and the environment were refused any federal government funding.

I asked the foreign minister why it was that this explicit bar on the peoples summit, using federal funds to assist people from civil society attending the peoples summit, was in place. I pointed out the double standard and the fact that the federal government is spending something in excess of $50 million for the APEC summit itself for things like security for leaders like Suharto and Cheung Chi Min and others and it is not prepared to provide the very minimal funding which has been requested to assist in the travel of delegates from APEC countries to the peoples summit.

At the same time I questioned the minister with respect to cuts in Canada's overseas development aid, shameful cuts which have led to our being severely criticized by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and other international aid bodies. We have dropped from fifth place to eleventh place in the OECD.

Now that the Minister of Finance has triumphantly proclaimed that the deficit has been wrestled to the ground, I urged that the minister responsible for foreign affairs, the Minister for International Co-operation, cancel the proposed 8% cut, about $150 million, which is planned for next April in Canada's overseas development aid.

Unfortunately the response to both those questions was completely unsatisfactory.

I point out that as well in the context of the upcoming APEC peoples summit my colleague from Yukon raised very serious concerns about the failure of the federal government to provide requested financial assistance to the APEC women's conference, this despite the commitment that was made by the secretary of state for women and multiculturalism at the conference in Beijing. The failure to provide proper funding has also led to the cancellation of the indigenous peoples forum.

The peoples summit is a tremendous opportunity for Canadians and for people in APEC countries to raise concerns about human rights, about workers rights, about the environment, and I want to pay tribute to the organizers of the upcoming peoples summit in Vancouver later this month.

I want to again appeal to the Government of Canada to honour its own policy, the policy of CIDA, which encourages the involvement of delegates from other countries in important UN conferences and other key intergovernmental and non-governmental fora. They have much to witness; workers from Hong Kong, for example, who will speak about the failure of the Government of China to respect workers rights. It just cancelled the laws passed by the Hong Kong legislature to guarantee freedom of association. It is important that we hear from workers there. It is important that we hear from workers in Indonesia and from others talking about the genocidal policies of Suharto in East Timor. Why are we allowing him to come to Canada when he is guilty of crimes against humanity?

These are some of the questions that I hope will be addressed at the People's Summit. I appeal to the government to provide the funding necessary to those who are coming—