Fin Donnelly

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this week our motion in support of the owner-operator and fleet separation policies was killed by the Conservatives on the fisheries and oceans standing committee. It is clear they do not support independent fishermen and east coast communities.

Let us hear from the minister himself. We have asked him before, but got no answers, so let us try one more time. Will the Conservatives stand up for fishermen and maintain the fleet separation owner-operator policies, yes or no?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her contribution to this debate. She outlined some of the principles that are fundamental to what we would call a fair trade agreement. She spoke of the economic piece, of course, but she also mentioned that the social and environmental elements are critical. She talked about human rights, labour conditions and environmental practices. Essentially, she talked about the inequity that would exist if this trade deal went through in its current form, notwithstanding some of the attempts we have made to make amendments.

If there were really true political will to address some of these issues would this side of the House, and would my hon. colleague, be supportive of this kind of trade deal that included these elements?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the minister to confirm or deny that he is planning to gut the Fisheries Act, but he will not give a straight answer.

Last week, two former Progressive Conservative fisheries ministers called the proposed changes foolish. One called the government “ideological right-wingers with very, very limited understanding, intelligence or wisdom”.

Even Conservatives know that eliminating fish habitat protection will set us back decades. Therefore, I ask again, is the government going to eliminate habitat protection, yes or no?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a leaked document has revealed a new Conservative plan to attack the Fisheries Act. It shines light on the government's plan to gut important environmental protection.

Eliminating habitat protection will set us back decades, making it easier to ram through big industrial projects, like the Enbridge pipeline which we know will have a devastating impact on the environment.

I ask the minister again, is the Conservative government planning to gut the habitat fisheries, yes or no?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yes he is stuck.

It appears the Conservatives are planning to bury sweeping changes to the Fisheries Act in the upcoming budget. The minister uses the word “modernize” but removing habitat protection from the Fisheries Act would set Canada back decades.

The minister must come clean. Is the minister planning to change section 35 of the Fisheries Act in the next budget? Is the plan to eliminate the protection of fish habitat in Canada and effectively gut the law, yes or no?

[Purple Day Act, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about epilepsy and to speak in support of Bill C-278. I also want to acknowledge the good work of my colleague, the member for Sudbury, in raising awareness about epilepsy.

Indeed, it is an honour for me to speak in the House today on this important issue. We have to bring epilepsy out into the open due to the stigma that surrounds it and the prejudice with which society has historically treated people with epilepsy. Many with this disorder are reluctant to admit it or to seek treatment.

Epilepsy is a serious neurological disorder that affects the brain and causes sudden changes in how the brain works. It presents itself in the form of seizures.

We are all touched by epilepsy, whether of a family member, a co-worker, a friend or a neighbour. Epilepsy is a condition that affects thousands of Canadians. Every year in Canada an average of 15,500 people learn they have epilepsy. That is about 42 people each and every day who are diagnosed with epilepsy. About 60% of new patients are young children and senior citizens.

Those with loved ones suffering from epilepsy are all too familiar with the fear that surrounds this disease. They fear for their loved ones and the powerlessness that accompanies a seizure. They fear that they will be in the wrong place when a seizure occurs, that it will happen in the shower or when they are home alone.

There are so many variables to this condition that we have no power to control. However, we are not powerless. The government has a role to play and the public has a role to play too. The government must do a better job of adequately funding medical research and ensuring that medication is readily available and affordable.

The public can also play a part by educating itself about epilepsy and how to identify a seizure. Each one of us can commit to helping someone in distress and taking action so that seizure-sufferers are cared for appropriately when they experience an episode and to notifying emergency services if necessary.

Unfortunately, even today, the general public does not know how to react to a person having a seizure. There are so many misconceptions about how to help a person who is having a seizure. For example, restraining a person during a seizure is the wrong action to take, yet many people do not know that. Also, nothing should be placed in the mouth of the person having a seizure. However, old myths persist and the public needs to made aware of the facts. It should be basic first aid.

With so many Canadians living with epilepsy, awareness is the key. In my home province of British Columbia, the B.C. Epilepsy Society works to increase awareness of epilepsy and seizures by offering seizure awareness workshops, and distributing information materials for employers, community organizations, including school staff and students, child care providers, recreational leaders and community support workers.

I encourage all Canadians, and in particular the constituents of my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody, to educate themselves about what to do when someone is having a seizure. It is as easy as contacting the B.C. Epilepsy Society to request their seizure first aid postcards, posters or wallet cards. This commitment to education and action will literally save lives.

March is Epilepsy Awareness Month, a time for Canadians to be reminded of the prevalence of this disease, how it affects those who live with it and their families, and what work remains to be done to support those who live with it and to support efforts to find a cure. March is also when Purple Day occurs. It is March 26.

I would like to acknowledge a brave young woman named Cassidy Megan, who had the idea for the Purple Day for epilepsy campaign. She joined with the Epilepsy Association of Nova Scotia in 2009. The Purple Day for epilepsy campaign was launched internationally.

The Purple Day for epilepsy campaign has been so important in raising awareness about epilepsy. It has involved countless organizations, schools and celebrities from around the world. It has also engaged politicians, like us in this House.

Cassidy wrote about her diagnosis in an open letter. She said:

Educating people about epilepsy is so important because people need to know what to do if they see someone having a seizure and they need to know that there are different types of seizures and that they don’t have to be afraid of epilepsy or the people who have it. Education also helps people with epilepsy know they aren’t alone.

The intent of the legislation before us in the House today is to increase public awareness about epilepsy. It proposes designating March 26 as Purple Day and it would encourage all Canadians to show their support for people with epilepsy by wearing the colour purple.

I would like to reiterate my support for the bill and its commendable goal of increasing awareness of epilepsy. However, I would like to challenge my colleagues on both sides of the House to consider what we can do as parliamentarians to go beyond simply raising awareness. We know the importance of raising awareness of epilepsy among Canadians. It saves lives, breaks through stigmas and enables us to better understand the challenges faced by those living with this disorder. As parliamentarians, I believe we owe it to Canadians to consider what additional actions the federal government can take to improve the current and future situation of those living with epilepsy beyond encouraging Canadians to wear purple.

As parliamentarians, we know there is a drug shortage in Canada, which also includes a shortage of medication to treat epilepsy. This past October, the Canadian Epilepsy Alliance warned that this drug shortage endangered the lives of those living with epilepsy. It is clear that the federal government can and must do more to address the critical issue of drug shortages in our country.

It is the job of pharmaceutical companies to develop and market effective products that best serve the interests of their bottom lines, but it is not their job to ensure that all Canadians have access to the drugs prescribed by their health professionals, nor should it be. That is the responsibility of government, representatives democratically elected to serve the higher interests of the public good. Canadians are waiting for the Conservative government to step up to the plate.

Today we are considering a bill to designate March 26 as a day to raise awareness of epilepsy. I fully support the bill. I imagine all my colleagues will do the same, but let us not be afraid to roll up our sleeves and get the hard work done of ensuring that Canadians have access to the drugs they need toward eradicating epilepsy.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been unacceptably silent on fleet separation. The Conservatives will not say publicly what they are planning to do. However, what we do know is that for years this policy has preserved jobs for independent fishers. It is becoming obvious that the minister wants to sell out Canadian fishers to big corporate interests. The minister must come clean.

Why does the Conservative government want to get rid of something that has helped so many coastal communities?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, east coast fishers are worried. The government is about to eliminate the long-standing fleet separation policy. It is talking about handing over the fragile inshore fishery to big corporate interests.

Coastal communities depend on the inshore fishery, yet the government will not even consult with them. Corporate concentration in B.C. has been a total disaster. That fishery has never recovered.

Will the minister stand with independent fishers and oppose this corporate sellout?

[The Environment, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, against the will of British Columbians, the Conservatives continue to push their Enbridge pipeline project. Their latest move was to accept a report paid for by Enbridge which says--surprise, surprise--there are no tanker traffic safety issues.

We are talking about some of Canada's most sensitive and perilous waters. Not only that, if there is a spill, the Conservatives say Enbridge would not be responsible.

Can the Conservatives rely on such a biased report when so much of B.C.'s coast is at risk?

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the use of fear-mongering terms was not helpful in this debate, but I cannot help but make reference to the public safety minister's comments that people can either stand with the government or with the child pornographers. I really do not find that helpful or constructive in this debate.

The member talked about safeguarding the interests of Canadians. Obviously, all of us in the House have an interest in safeguarding the interests of Canadians, but there is also the issue of legislation going too far. Former public safety minister Stockwell Day stated in 2007:

We have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police the power to get information from Internet companies without a warrant. That’s never been a proposal. It may make some investigations more difficult, but our expectation is rights to our privacy are such that we do not plan, nor will we have in place, something that would allow the police to get that information.

The minister was saying that a warrant is needed to search for personal data. I am wondering why the government is now proposing such a change in direction.