House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 56% of the vote.
Questions Passed As Orders For Return May 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on October 28, 1997, I asked Question No. 33. There seems to be a reluctance to provide the answer to this question. I cannot understand it, other than to note that the question has to do with a special relationship between the minister and the Oak Bay Marine Group and the actions of the minister's west coast assistant, Velma McColl. I would like to know when I can expect that answer.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns May 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on December 2, 1997 I asked Question No. 56, which at one point I was told was with the House leader's office.
The parliamentary secretary pointed out at one point, quite inaccurately, that roughly 800 questions had been received to that point, which was a great exaggeration. He said that he had answered half of them. If he had I guess I would be finished.
On many occasions he has told me that I could expect an answer in a timely fashion. The parliamentary secretary is beginning to remind me of Bill Clinton. Clinton said that Monica Lewinski was going to—
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns May 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on October 28, 1997 I asked Question No. 33. There seems to be a reluctance to answer the question. The question has to do with the Oak Bay Marine Group and the Sport Fishing Institute, two organizations very near and dear to the fisheries minister's heart. I was told on April 29 that the response was with the House leader's office. I was informed he had it on March 26 and on April 16 as well.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could look in his desk to find that response this morning.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns May 1st, 1998
With respect to aboriginal fishing activities in British Columbia during the period from March 31, 1992, to November 30, 1997, with the exception of salmon and herring fisheries: ( a ) which aboriginal groups received communal licences or other authorization to fish excluding commercial fishing licences of the same type issued to the all-canadian commercial fishing fleet in British Columbia; ( b ) what period did each licence include; ( c ) what species did each licence include; ( d ) what quantity of each species could be harvested under each licence; ( e ) what quantity of each species was reported as harvested under each licence; ( f ) what evidence does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) possess to conclude that these aboriginal groups have an aboriginal right to harvest the species for which the licence was issued in the area in which the fishing activities take place; ( g ) what evidence of pre-contact harvesting of the species did the aboriginal groups provide to convince DFO such that they now ought to be awarded an aboriginal licence; ( h ) were any coastal waters of British Columbia closed either permanently or temporarily to fishing by other Canadians to accommodate these aboriginal fisheries; ( i ) if certain areas were closed, which areas, for what period and to accommodate which aboriginal group fishing and for which species; ( j ) what evidence does DFO possess to conclude that an area closure was necessary to protect the claimed aboriginal fishing right; and ( k ) in the absence of a proven aboriginal right to fish, on what grounds or on what basis does DFO close waters to fishing by Canadians other than those belonging to a designated aboriginal group?
Return tabled.
Questions On The Order Paper April 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this point of order concerns Question No. 51 which was asked on December 1, 1997 and the aboriginal commercial fishing in British Columbia.
I have been led to believe that an answer to the question has been provided, but the minister was not happy with the reply and sent it back to his officials.
I can understand why the minister is reluctant to respond to the question. He has been constantly misinterpreting to the public the response of the Provincial Court of British Columbia on this issue and ignoring the Supreme Court of Canada. He is again reluctant to answer this very important question.
We need an answer to the question. We want it now. We are getting stonewalled on it time after time.
Questions On The Order Paper April 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this point of order concerns Question No. 56 which was asked on December 2, 1997. The question again concerns the failure of the B.C. sport fishing institute to provide timely catch data to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I can understand perhaps the reluctance of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to respond to the question because shortly after the minister went fishing with Randy Wright of the Oak Bay Marine Group the charges which had been laid against the company were dropped. I can understand why.
I would like to know when I can expect an answer. I have been told countless times that I could expect it in a timely fashion and so on, but I would like to know when we can expect an answer to the question.
Questions On The Order Paper April 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this matter involves only one department. Question No. 33 was asked on October 28, 1997, with regard to the refusal of sport fishing lodges, in particular the lodges owned by the Oak Bay Marine Group, to provide catch data during the summer of 1995.
I am fully aware that the minister may be reluctant to respond to this question because it concerns the actions of Velma McColl on behalf of the sport fishing institute at that time. She is now employed as his west coast assistant.
I have been asking about this question persistently and I would like to know when I can expect the answer.
Housing Co-Operatives April 28th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Tobique—Mactaquac who brought this motion before the House. The motion directs the government to take all necessary steps to ensure the continued viability of housing co-operatives administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Housing co-operatives play an important role in providing affordable housing in my riding and in this country. Over 250,000 Canadians are members of nearly 2,200 non-profit housing co-operatives located in all parts of Canada. The people who live in housing co-operatives are often more satisfied in their accommodations than those who rent privately or who live in other kinds of social housing.
Turnover rates are about half those in the private rental market. About one-third of renters say they would move into housing co-operatives if they could. Forty thousand Canadian households are on co-op waiting lists. Canadians who live in co-ops are members, not tenants. They control their own housing through elected boards of directors.
Co-op housing is unique. Among assisted housing providers only co-operatives are committed to empowering ordinary Canadians to manage their own housing. While co-ops are dependent on some government support, they do in fact break the cycle of dependency enabling Canadians who need affordable housing to take control of their lives. Operating costs are below those of all other forms of assisted housing, 19% less than municipal or private non-profit housing and 71% less than government owned and operated public housing.
Co-op housing would make an important contribution even if it was not substantially cheaper than comparable forms of government assisted social housing. Co-op housing allows members to learn the skills of operating and managing the co-op. Co-ops have more than twice as many single families than are found in the general population.
Canadians with disabilities and other special needs live in the more than 5,000 units of co-op housing. They are counted on to participate as full and equal members. Co-ops emphasize abilities, not disabilities.
The majority of the co-op members are women and 10% of the units are occupied by women over 55 years of age. Women participate fully and equally with co-op elected leadership and staff. Nearly two-thirds of co-op units contain families with children. Co-ops help communities achieve sensible and sustainable urban development and preservation of historic neighbourhoods.
All co-ops play an important role in this country whether they be housing co-ops, consumer co-ops, farmer co-ops or financial service co-ops. Indeed at a time of mega bank mergers I believe that financial service co-ops will play an important role in providing Canadians with options.
Perhaps nowhere is co-op housing more important than in British Columbia. In the lower mainland of B.C., affordable housing is often not available. Even modest housing can be extraordinarily expensive. There are close to 15,000 people on waiting lists for co-op housing. Housing co-operatives play an important role. Co-op housing in B.C. fills the need for affordable housing for families, seniors and low to moderate income households. I think particularly of the housing co-ops in Steveston in my riding of Delta—South Richmond.
Co-ops are adaptable and resourceful. They will seek to respond to reasonable changes in government policy. But co-ops are concerned about their very existence. The current government policy designed to download or to devolve social housing responsibilities to the provinces fails to protect housing co-ops. The plan threatens to destroy a unique Canadian success story that has taken over 30 years to build. Co-op members across Canada are deeply concerned by this proposal which will affect 250,000 residents and over 60,000 co-op homes and apartments.
I call upon the government to change direction to find a mechanism to protect co-op housing in its rush to download to the provinces. The unique co-op self-management approach may well be eroded in the downloading. Co-ops are not just another form of social housing. Co-ops are the least costly form of all federal social housing programs because of the commitment and involvement of co-op members.
In future, co-op rents may rise dramatically and the buildings may deteriorate physically as a result of insufficient federal funding which may force cash strapped provincial governments to cut spending for social housing. The risks are real because the downloading agreements with the provinces do not adequately protect the operating agreements between the co-ops and CMHC and because federal expenditures have been capped at the 1995-96 levels.
The downloading has already taken place in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan government is currently proposing changes which co-ops believe will seriously erode their accountability and authority for setting housing changes, budgets and the number of households they will subsidize. If co-ops are forced to accept these proposals, they will be forced to operate much more like public housing.
I am impressed by the work done by the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. It has proposed a viable non-governmental alternative for the country's housing co-ops. The administration of co-op programs would be contracted to a non-profit management corporation operating at arm's length from government. This approach would build on the co-op sector's decades of experience and successful cost effective self-management.
Streamlined staffing and organization would allow considerable savings in comparison with government management, be it federal or provincial. Minimum savings are estimated at $2 million a year in the cost of portfolio administration plus $50 million in savings on project costs over 20 years.
The proposal from the co-ops, unlike the current government policy of transfer to the provinces, would preserve the keys to the co-op housing success story: member control and decentralized management.
In British Columbia both co-op organizations support the national organization's proposal for an agency at arm's length from government. Furthermore I understand the province of British Columbia is supportive of the position taken by our co-ops and has written to the federal government to have co-ops taken off the table in the transfer talks. The federal government has not yet responded to this very critical need.
Questions On The Order Paper April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on October 28, 1997, I asked Question No. 33 and again on December 2, 1997, I asked Question No. 56. I have asked the hon. gentleman opposite on a number of occasions about the placement of these questions. The questions relate to the Oak Bay Marine Group, a company owned by Mr. Bob Wright, and a company perhaps favoured by the minister of fisheries. I wonder if the member can tell me the status of those questions.
As well, on December 1, 1997, I asked Question No. 51 which has to do with the aboriginal fisheries. Again it is another question which the minister may not be too happy to answer, but I would like to know what is happening to my question.
Questions On The Order Paper April 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 51 concerning the aboriginal fishery was asked on December 1, 1997.
On March 26 the PCO said that from the department's point of view the answer was complete and that it had gone to the minister to be signed off.
On April 16 the PCO said that it had yet to receive it from the department. I would like to know where my question is.