Lost his last election, in 2000, with 34% of the vote.
Fisheries November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, on January 18 the former minister of fisheries wrote to one of our fishery representatives telling him that there would be no increase in lobster size until the industry's self-imposed V-notching program could be analysed.
Why did the minister not give V-notching a chance?
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act November 25th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, a bill to establish the Canadian institutes of health research. Finally we see this government come up with a piece of legislation that deals with a very important part of our Canadian infrastructure, health care and health research.
This is the same government that bragged in the budget of February of this year that it was putting $11.5 billion back into health care. What it failed to say, however, was that the $11.5 billion was basically returning part of the $17 billion it had cut from the health care system. It is good to see that at least there is some forward movement when it comes to health care.
I cannot speak today about health care and ignore what we saw in the last year in how poorly those afflicted with hepatitis C were treated by the government and the lack of support for these people. It was something that was truly not acceptable to our party, to me as an individual and to Canadians as a whole because they felt these people were truly victims and should have been given some compensation.
Let us look at the waste and the misuse of funds by this government. Take, for example, Bill C-68, the long gun registry. The government said it would spend $85 million to set up this registry. It has spent well over $200 million. The registry is not going very well. It is still not working as it should, and crime has not been reduced because of this so-called piece of crime reduction legislation. Had those funds been spent on giving our law enforcement people better resources, better computer systems and money to increase the number of policemen on our streets, those funds would have been better spent than wasting them on something that was more of a PR effort or a tax grab.
Canadians are not strangers to huge advances in medical science. Despite our small population of some 30 million people, we have seen very notable achievements within this country in health care. I think back to Banting and Best and their discovery of insulin. I think back to Sir William Osler, who wrote the medical text book Principles and Practices of Medicine . He basically introduced the idea of clinical care in our health care system.
We see that Canada has already had some notable people in the health care field. This piece of legislation will help to bring out some other people who could make a contribution to health care and health research.
We talk about the brain drain in this country. A lot of our bright young minds are going across the border to better paying jobs and better working conditions. One of the positive things about this piece of legislation is that it will help to keep some of those bright young minds in Canada. Not only will those people stay in Canada to earn their living, but some medical advances will probably be brought to this country because of them.
Prior to my entry into politics I spent over 15 years with the Life Underwriters Association of Yarmouth, the town where I worked for the past number of years, and every Christmas season we would raise funds for cystic fibrosis research. I know how difficult cystic fibrosis can be on the families of young people which demand the extent of care that is required for these people, the constant medication that they have to take, the constant treatment and therapy that has to be given so that they can continue living. Their quality of life is often diminished. Their life is not very long because this illness kills.
Research has isolated the gene that causes cystic fibrosis. The cure has not been found, but I think what it shows is that with funding and with research we can work toward a cure for some of our most serious health problems.
When I think of my home province of Nova Scotia, I think about the IWK/Grace Health Centre, which is a world renowned children's hospital. I know that a lot of research is done there. The centre has very bright minds, good researchers and good doctors. I know firsthand how caring the centre is. My youngest daughter has cerebral palsy and we have spent a lot of time there over the past 13 years. The level of care, the level of treatment and how that centre helps people is very evident.
Yet, because of all the cuts the government has made the people who work at the centre, along with many others, have had to work hard to raise extra funds. They have a telethon every spring to raise funds, just so they can continue to operate. These institutions should have the funds necessary to provide the services that Canadians need.
We get numerous calls and letters from people saying that health care is important, that we should work to make it better and not let it erode. If we are not vigilant, I am afraid that we will end up with something similar to what they have in the United States. I am not in agreement with that. We have a health care system in Canada that is by far the best in the world, but we have to be vigilant. We have to ensure that we keep it.
This is good legislation. There are, however, some things that concern me. As any legislation, it is not perfect. One of the things we have to do is ensure that we do not have institutes that are overburdened with bureaucracy. We have to ensure that the funds go to the researchers for research purposes and that the benefits go to curing illness and not to an administration that is top heavy.
Another point that has to be looked at is the transparency in the creation of these institutes. This cannot be another political plum given to supporters of the government. We have to ensure that these are institutes which are independent, which do their work, which do not waste funds on bureaucracy, and that the funds go where they are really needed.
This is legislation that is worthy of our support. I ask all members to support it so that it can go to committee where it can be studied properly.
Public Ports November 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada has been slowly divesting itself of regional local ports. By imposing such a significant increase upon its remaining public ports, is the Minister of Transport not simply using undue economic pressure to force local communities to bear the brunt of the wharf divestiture program?
Public Ports November 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, back in August Transport Canada was considering a proposal to adjust all existing public port fees by an increase of 15% per annum over the next three years.
Will the Minister of Transport tell us whether this increase has been approved or whether it is still under consideration?
Aboriginal Affairs November 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, on October 20 the minister of Indian affairs stated that the Marshall ruling included native logging, mineral and offshore exploration rights. Yesterday the supreme court decision clearly stated that this was not the case. Why did the minister artificially create a crisis in other natural resource sectors when he had no right to do so?
Aboriginal Affairs November 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, will the minister of Indian affairs tell the House whether he sought any legal advice pertaining to the Marshall decision before telling the Canadian public that the supreme court decision addressed native logging, mineral and offshore exploration rights?
Aboriginal Affairs November 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada finally provided Atlantic Canadians with some clarification as to what extent native rights are being addressed in its September 17 decision.
It is obvious that the supreme court decision was completely misinterpreted by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who unilaterally decided that the ruling contained provisions that dealt directly with logging, mineral and offshore gas exploration rights.
The minister contradicted his own minister of fisheries at a crucial time when tensions on the east coast were at their highest. His statements were totally irresponsible and only added further fear and unrest within our communities.
The minister and his government completely ignored calls for clarification of the Donald Marshall decision and instead forced the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition to do their job for them. The minister was totally irresponsible in his actions. He misinterpreted the court's decision and as such has misinformed the Canadian public.
Aboriginal Affairs November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this morning the supreme court dismissed the motion by the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition asking the court to rehear the September 17 ruling in the Donald Marshall Jr. case.
Despite this ruling, the court finally provided clarification on the extent by which natives can exercise their rights to fishing, hunting and gathering.
The court makes it clear that the Marshall ruling does not provide natives with access to logging or mineral rights as was suggested by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The West Nova Fishermen's Coalition deserves a lot of credit for asking the supreme court for clarification on this issue. It is shameful as to why the federal government did not take it upon itself to seek its own clarification.
We knew that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had failed to protect the east coast fishery, however, now we discovered that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been acting upon his own personal interpretation of the Marshall ruling, one that today's supreme court decision has said is totally wrong.
Canadians have lost faith in these two ministers and it is for this reason that we ask for their immediate resignations.
Supply November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I respect the spirit in which it was asked, but I think there is a clear difference between what the government did and what this party would do.
We would not have had this decision go to the supreme court but would have dealt with the issue in parliament so that it could have been debated. Then we would have gone back to the parties involved and negotiated a settlement. We would not have put it in the hands of the supreme court.
Supply November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy my hon. colleague asked that question. I do not know if it is my involvement some years ago with the Boy Scout movement or if it is my personal way of doing things from my business background, but I like knowing or at least being prepared for what is coming, be it good or bad. I always try to prepare.
It is for this reason that I just cannot fathom why the minister of fisheries was not prepared. He said that it could have gone many ways. There were two obvious ways that it could have gone: either the decision was in favour of Donald Marshall or it was not.
If it were in favour of Donald Marshall there were things that could have been done. He could have been prepared. He could have come down to the affected areas and said that they had a plan, that they were working with both sides, that they would work with them and iron out some kind of solution at least in the long term so they could work toward a longer term solution to the problem. Had it gone the other side, the native community would have had some concerns. Obviously negotiations would have been needed there.
However, there was none of that. There was no preparedness. It took seven weeks to show the terms of reference for the negotiator, almost a month to appoint a negotiator, and three days to make an initial announcement on the decision. That is total unpreparedness. It is not acceptable and this is ongoing.
I was speaking with a friend shortly after the decision came down. I said it blew me away that the government did not have a solution in place. He said that was how it was, that there was never a solution, only band-aids one after another.
That is not a solution. There has to be one. We need a government that thinks forward, not just puts out the fires as they happen.