House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 56% of the vote.
Fisheries May 10th, 1996
All two of them, Mr. Speaker.
More than fine tuning is required to rejig this plan. The government wants B.C. fishermen to take hard medicine yet neither the minister nor the premier of B.C. are interested in saving fish. The minister is cutting the number of fishermen in half while the premier of B.C. is giving half of the resource away, adding up to no fish saved and fishermen's lives decimated.
Fishermen want a plan that will hurt as few people-
Fisheries May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister is a flip-flop pro. First he said that the B.C. buy back would conserve fish and then he said it would not. Then he said there would not be a fee holiday for fishermen this year and then he said there would. While he is flip-flopping to protect his own career, fishermen are convinced that the government is going to do to the west what it did to the east. I do not know whether to laugh at the minister or to cry for the fishermen.
Why is the government proceeding with a brutal restructuring plan when it admits that it does not know if a single fish will be saved in the process? What is the real agenda?
Fisheries May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, today a respected B.C. economist, Dr. Peter Pearse, described the fisheries minister's plan as a cold shower. It sure is. It is a shock to the entire industry. The plan will irrevocably change the lives of thousands of British Columbians.
In the face of mounting opposition why the rush? Why not implement those portions of the plan where there is widespread support and delay the rest in order to address the broad based concerns being expressed in British Columbia?
Fisheries May 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the stated objective of the minister of fisheries is to downsize the B.C. fishing fleet by 50 per cent.
The minister knows full well the practical effect of treaty negotiations is to reallocate half the fisheries resource. How can the minister justify asking the B.C. industry to finance its own downsizing when he is prepared to give away half its catch?
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. It is a bill to which I am opposed. I find it
is fundamentally flawed. A measure of that is the co-operation among all parties where there is widespread concern about the bill.
The bill stands for more than the government would have us believe. Chief Justice Lamer, in the Mossop case, said: "Indeed, in this case if Parliament had decided to include sexual orientation on the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act, my interpretation of the phrase family status might have been entirely different. I might then have concluded that Mr. Mossop's situation included both his sexual orientation and his family status". That is the underlying concern that many of us have with the bill.
Max Yalden, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, similarly stated: "We are strongly in favour of an amendment that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means if benefits are paid to a heterosexual couple living in common law, the same benefits should be paid to a couple living in the same situation except that they are two men or two women. Our position on that matter is very clear. We are waiting for the government's reaction".
That sentiment is fairly well founded when there is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and someone of Mr. Yalden's expertise commenting.
It was reported in a local newspaper that the government's position on this, that these matters were not of concern, was a position that was seriously flawed. If I used the wording in the newspaper article I would be called to account for unparliamentary language.
I will point out the comments of one member opposite who said that some of our members stood up in the House today and said "blank" about this legislation. I will leave the word "blank" to your discretion. However, the legislation is more than it seems.
The previous speaker talked about polling. In my riding we tried to get a feeling about how our constituents felt about this legislation. We asked two questions. The first was: "Do you think the federal government should amend legislation to add sexual orientation as a grounds of discrimination?" A slim majority of people felt this was a reasonable objective.
The second question was: "Would you support this amendment if it means that homosexual couples would receive economic and family benefits which include medical, survivor, income tax benefits and so on?" That was where people drew the line. When we factored that question into it there was opposition to that bill.
Anybody who seriously polls their constituents on this bill must ask those two questions, the first question being simply whether they support the bill and the second and most important one being whether they support it if these are the implications.
Given the implications and that there is a large religious community in the country concerned about these implications, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops proposed some amendments to the member from Edmonton from my party. He checked with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and asked if it would support the amendments to the bill.
The amendments proposed by the Catholic bishops are simply: one, the definition of marital status and family status under the Canadian Human Rights Act be limited to heterosexual couples, as the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops says, because of their irreplaceable role in the procreation and nurturing of children, upon which the future of our society depends; two, it should be legislatively permitted that the history and social objectives of this legislation be taken into account in determining whether certain policy distinctions amount to unjust discrimination; three, the teaching and hiring practices of religious institutions are to be protected.
Unfortunately the government, although claiming the bill would not have these effects, is reluctant to support amendments which would support the position of Canadian Catholic bishops and Evangelical Christians in Canada. I believe that really speaks words for the intentions of the government in promoting this bill.
I do not have any difficulty in voting against this. I believe my constituents are solidly opposed to the bill for the reasons I gave. However, the big concern I have in addressing the bill deals with my first priority in life. Believe it or not, as much as I value my position as a member of Parliament, it is not my first priority in life. The first priority in my life is trying to be a reasonable father for my children. As much as I may have failings, I do have good support at home from my wife, for which I am eternally grateful.
When I look at the bill and recognize the implications the government has in proposing it, I ask whether the bill is really stating that thou shalt not discriminate, or is it presenting to the children of this country an alternate lifestyle in stating that this lifestyle is of equal significance, importance or value as another.
I as a parent cannot say I would sit my son or daughters beside me and tell them one of their choices is to marry Jane down the street, have a family and raise children, but another equally legitimate lifestyle is the homosexual lifestyle. I do not believe those two lifestyles are equal. Because an adult makes a personal decision in these matters does not say that I am opposed to him or her, or that I look down on him or her. My role is not to be judgmental to that degree.
My role as a parent is to present reasonable alternatives to my children. By supporting this legislation which will lead, I believe, to family benefits and that sort of thing for homosexual couples, the underlying theme for our children that this is a legitimate alternative. I do not think it can be presented that way. For that
reason I am very concerned and will be voting against it when the time comes.
Salmon Fishery May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, given the stated objective of the minister's plan to revitalize the commercial salmon fishery in B.C. is to reduce the size of the fleet by 50 per cent, and with the Nisga'a soon to be guaranteed by treaty about 27 per cent of Nass River production, and with at least two other Nass bands yet to settle, would the minister not agree that his downsizing plan was designed only to allow the reallocation of fish under treaties?
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
Do you agree?
Fisheries May 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, a stated objective of the fisheries minister's plan for revitalizing the commercial salmon fishery in B.C. is to reduce the size of the commercial fleet by 50 per cent. Eliminating 50 per cent of the fleet will do absolutely nothing to improve the economics of fishing if at the same time the fleet's catch is reduced by one-half, and that is what is happening.
For example, last summer, the native's share of the commercial catch on the Fraser River under the aboriginal fishing strategy increased to over 50 per cent of the fish caught. With the Nisga'a soon to be guaranteed by treaty 27 per cent of the Nass River production and at least two other Nass bands yet to settle, the native allocation on the Nass will easily exceed 50 per cent of the catch. Allocations of this magnitude will be repeated coastwide as more than 40 treaties are concluded.
It is readily apparent that the downsizing of the fleet by one-half which will occur under the minister's plan has only been prescribed to accommodate increased allocations to native only fisheries under treaties and aboriginal fishing arrangements.
Fisheries April 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, something has to be done, but increasing costs in a time of hardship is not the thing to do.
The minister knows his policy will do nothing to help small fishermen. It will force them out of business. On top of that, the policy will force fishermen to increase their catch to pay the extra costs.
The minister's plan forces fishermen out of the industry, takes away their livelihoods and on top of that puts increased pressure on salmon stocks. How can he possibly justify punishing British Columbians with such a poorly conceived plan?
Fisheries April 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister in his wisdom has divided the B.C. small boat fleet into three geographic areas.
Just to make a living fishermen will be forced to buy a second or a third licence. That will probably cost them $13,000 a year, $13,000 in additional costs.
At a time when fish prices are depressed, the Fraser River is to be shutdown for a year and when fishermen are going broke, how does the minister dare saddle B.C. fishermen with another $13,000 a year in additional costs?