House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 56% of the vote.
Fisheries April 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister's west coast plan will take 50 per cent of the fleet away from B.C. fishermen. At the same time the Nisga'a treaty and other commercial sales agreements could transfer as much as 50 per cent of the commercial catch to natives.
How can the minister possibly justify a 50 per cent reduction in the fleet, one that fishermen will pay dearly for, and at the very same time a 50 per cent reallocation of the commercial catch to native fisheries?
Tswwassen Sewage Treatment Plant April 23rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, there is a legal requirement that the sewage treatment facility being constructed by the Tswwassen Indian Band be subject to an environmental assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The government has refused to confirm such an assessment. This plant is being built on vitally sensitive intertidal salt water marsh. The marsh has been internationally recognized as an extremely sensitive habitat for juvenile salmon, migratory wildlife and the great blue heron, a species unique to this ecosystem.
In spite of enormous pressure from the public, the province of British Columbia and the municipality of Delta, these ministers of the government are apparently denying the people of the country access to their own environmental laws.
I beg the House to join in my demand that the Government of Canada immediately confirm that it has commenced and environmental assessment of this sewage project pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There must be one law in this land and it must apply to each of us.
Petitions April 22nd, 1996
The next petition, Mr. Speaker, states that the availability of reasonably priced energy helps Canadians to offset the high cost of transportation in a geographically dispersed country and that mobility is a basic right and an economic necessity; that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is composed of taxes; that the federal government reinvests in highways less than 5 per cent of its fuel tax revenues; and that two committees of Parliament recommended federal gas increases of 1.5 per cent and 2 per cent per litre respectively.
The petitioners therefore request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways.
Petitions April 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. Two of the petitions say that the section 241 of the Criminal Code states that everyone who (a) counsels a person to commit suicide or (b) aids and abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, that the Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld section 241 and that if it were struck down or amended such protection would no longer exist.
The petitioners humbly ask the House not to amend or repeal that section in any way.
Justice March 19th, 1996
Order. Order.
Supply March 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in 1985 when a U.S. coast guard icebreaker transited Canadian sovereign waters in the Arctic without permission, the Prime Minister said that the government of the day and Canada had been humiliated by the action.
In B.C. there is a strong sentiment that Canada has been humiliated by U.S. legislation which declares the inside passage of British Columbia an international waterway. Yet the federal government, as in the Quebec referendum, has failed to speak up for Canada.
The issue was before the U.S. congress in 1995 and at no time did the government speak up for Canada and publicly make the case for Canadian sovereignty. In fact, the U.S. congress passed the bill on October 24 and an amended version of the same bill passed the senate way back on June 30, yet there was silence from the Liberal government.
"The bill", according to the Congressional Quarterly , ``is the result of a fishing dispute in which the Canadian government imposed an $1,100 fee on U.S. vessels that pass through Canadian waters between Washington and Alaska. This was an act U.S. officials regarded as inconsistent with international law''.
That being said, there is no foundation for the claim that the inside passage is an international waterway. The Americans acknowledged as much in 1846 when they signed the Oregon treaty.
Now is not the time to diminish Canadian presence on the inside passage by shutting down lighthouses and contracting out weather information from American satellites controlled by the U.S. government. We must maintain our presence in the passage at this time.
It is also not the time for ministers to turn these critical decisions over to senior coast guard officials who, in discussing the lighthouse issue, said: "We don't have to accept what the minister said". We need the minister to be tough, to give no quarter on the sovereignty issue but to recognize that the challenge to our sovereignty is at heart a fish dispute.
We should not be suckered into a school yard brawl over this issue. We must give reason a chance to work. We know what does
not work. We tried fish wars in 1982 and again in 1994 to no avail. We have tried the transit fees. We have tried normal diplomatic channels. In fact, we tried mediation with a well respected international mediator, all to no avail.
We need a fresh approach to solve this fisheries dispute and ultimately the sovereignty issue. In that fresh approach what we should do and what we must do is recognize that when we are dealing with our American cousins on this we are not dealing directly with the American government. There are four groups that have a veto, including the states of Oregon, Washington, Alaska and the native tribes of the Pacific northwest.
The solution to this problem will not be found in Washington. It will only be found on the west coast. To achieve a solution, it is my view that we must appoint someone who has the confidence of British Columbians, who understands the issue and who will bring this dispute to a resolution.
To that point, I suggest that the government appoint John Fraser, Ambassador for Environment, to deal with this issue to protect Canadian sovereignty and to get to the root cause of this, which is in fact a fisheries dispute between Canada and the United States.
The Budget March 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the statement because it is not much of a question.
The fact is that cuts can be made to bureaucratic overburden but the delivery of services must be preserved. We have maintained all along that we must try to make government lean and mean but efficient. That is the key word. We must continue to provide the services required.
I tried to point out in my speech that while the cuts are being made, they are being made to the delivery of a service and the bureaucratic overburden remains intact. When one does that to a resource like the fisheries resource, which is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the government, then the fisheries resource will disappear and our ability to continue paying for the kinds of services we want is going to go out the window with the fish. That is the problem.
We must find a way to cut but we must do it wisely and smartly. Let us not just look at the bottom line and say: "I will cut to the bottom line and if I achieve my bottom line I am fine". It is not just the bottom line that counts. It is what is done with the money that is left. That is where the government has fallen flat on its face with regard to the fisheries resource. It is not doing its job of managing the money it has.
The Budget March 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that the government appears on target with its deficit reduction program, which simply goes to show that if we set the bar low enough we should at least be able to crawl over it.
The low targets set by the finance minister mean that our debt load is still increasing at a troubling rate. It will hit $602.7 billion or 74.8 per cent of gross domestic product in 1996-97. This federal debt is one of the main culprits responsible for our ever increasing tax bill.
To put it another way, the total tax bite has grown from 29.5 per cent of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 35.8 per cent of gross domestic product in 1994, a full 21.5 per cent increase. This growing tax bill directly impacts on our ability to maintain our commitments to Canadians.
In the last election Reform's zero in three budget proposal called for the tax back of pension benefits to seniors to kick in if total family income exceeded $54,000. For this we were accused of attacking the poor. In this budget some single seniors and couples with total incomes between $40,000 and $45,000 will receive lower benefits and all seniors with incomes above $45,000 will receive lower benefits. In my part of the world with its high cost of living, $45,000 is not a high family income.
The finance minister talked with some pride about cuts to department spending. Budget documents tell me that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans budget has been cut by about 20 per cent. A cut of 20 per cent may be reasonable. It may be the monetary target the minister is hoping to achieve, but is it allowing for the protection of the resource?
DFO bureaucrats, like all bureaucrats, will maintain the bureaucracy at all costs. All the fish can be gone, but the bureaucracy will remain to prepare for the fishery of the future, I suppose, or at least that seems to be the drill on the east coast.
Over the past 20 years we have witnessed a tremendous growth in the DFO bureaucracy on the west coast, while the number of staff who deal directly with fish and people have declined. Programs which impact fish have been cancelled.
In the estimates which were delivered today it shows fisheries operations 1995-96 to decreased from $422 million to $295 million. That is in large part where services are delivered, the account from which services are paid. At the same time corporate policy and program support, largely bureaucratic in nature, increases from $247 million to $273 million.
I have a letter from Don Roberts, chairman of the Nanaimo branch of the Pacific Trollers Association. Trollers are hook and line fishermen. They bring in a premium product from the high seas for which they can receive $4 and $5 a pound. The government has seen fit to take fish normally caught by trollers and give it to others who catch these fish in river fisheries and are lucky to get $1 a pound. But that is a story for another day.
Today Don's letter deals with the potential closure of the Nanaimo River salmon hatchery. I will read part of his letter. It states:
Today this hatchery produces 700,000 chinook fry, 450,000 coho fry and up to 1,000,000 chum fry annually. This is a far cry from the less than 100,000 chinook and coho produced when the hatchery opened its doors in 1979. The adult salmon from these releases form an important part of our local fisheries, as well as playing a major role in the rebuilding of seriously depleted lower Georgia Strait chinook stocks.
Several years ago the Pacific Salmon Commission identified lower Georgia Strait chinook as being a stock of extreme concern and made them a priority of the chinook rebuilding program embodied in the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Nanaimo River, along with a few other systems, were recognized as major contributors to this stock and essential to the rebuilding program. As a result, the Nanaimo River hatchery received additional funding for hatchery expansion to accommodate a substantial increase in chinook production. Now that this capacity has been realized, it is shocking to discover that Nanaimo is one of the hatcheries being considered for closure to meet arbitrary budget cuts.
Mr. Roberts goes on and he notes that one of the strengths of the Nanaimo River hatchery as it is linked to the community:
Over the years DFO funding has been complemented by financial, material and sweat contributions from numerous sources. The hatchery has earned the respect and support of the central island area. Some of the hatchery supporters are the: Community Futures Development Corporation of Central Island, city of Nanaimo, Nanaimo Fish and Game Club, Pacific Salmon Foundation, Pacific Trollers Association, School District No. 68, United Fishermen and Allied Workers, Nanaimo Harbour Commission, Harmac Pacific, B.C. Federation of Wildlife, MacMillan Bloedel, Nanaimo First Nations, Nanaimo Kiwanis Club and Gulf Trollers Association.
These groups represent thousands of hours of volunteer labour. In reality, DFO merely provides the seed money which provides a focus for these community groups that have a keen interest in preserving B.C.'s fishery resource. The Nanaimo hatchery is not alone when it comes to attracting volunteers. This community's spirit is evident at most, if not all, hatchery sites in B.C.
There are other irresponsible cuts which save bureaucrats' jobs but threaten the fishery resource. The minister claims to have met his target but the result is the real job of the department is not getting done.
I have here enforcement reports from the department received under access to information which support my contention. Enforcement officers in the field want the job done but cannot do it due to the lack of resources and personnel.
Problem dated June 18, 1995 in the north coast division; staffing levels are at a critical level in the conservation and protection sector on the north coast. If we want to address enforcement programs on the north coast we need to address our staffing issues.
Problem dated June 1995 at the Somass River; DFO staff levels are too low to monitor the fishery. The real problem will be the outside catches. It will be totally unmonitored.
Problem dated March 4, 1996, Vancouver Island, a patrol ship's summary. August 26-29, complaints about sportees, staff unavailable. No patrols.
Problem at Terrace, B.C., incident report. A summary for Kitimat area dated December 15, 1995; for this timeframe activities were sporadic due to changing staff and new officers. The full time officer worked alone for the most part until his departure in early August. During this period boat patrols were few and far between, making DFO's presence almost non-existent.
Problem dated July 17, 1995, south coast division; numerous rumours of double limits being taken. Not investigated due to overtime constraints. Major closures throughout the Victoria field district. Cause for concern is lack of available officers and resulted in no shellfish patrols being conducted.
Problem dated August 28, 1995, south coast division; troller fishery largely unmonitored due to staff commitments in Area 20. Poaching on river systems not patrolled due to lack of staff.
Problem, Victoria district update, period ending September 4, 1995. No staff available to patrol Cowichan River, Gold Stream River and Sooke River.
I am all for slim government but I cannot support the mindless trashing of a department with a constitutionally mandated obligation to protect our fisheries resource. I cannot support mindless cuts to health care, education and social programs.
Departmental spending cuts are a necessary objective, but simply meeting the target is not enough. The government must ensure essential departmental objectives are not undermined by wrong headed cuts.
Canadian Sovereignty March 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the language is the same as in 1985. Yesterday the transport minister said: "You cannot win with the Americans with rash and foolish behaviour". He should have given that advice to Brian Tobin before he slapped a transit fee on the Americans.
Negotiations over salmon with the U.S. broke down yesterday. There is no sign of an agreement. Now the U.S. has turned a fish dispute into a sovereignty showdown.
When will the government wake up to the needs of the west coast and figure out some way to undo the damage done by Brian Tobin, damage that could result in a violation of Canadian sovereignty?
Canadian Sovereignty March 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in 1985 an American coast guard icebreaker transited Canadian arctic waters without our permission.
In response, the current Prime Minister said the government had been humiliated and that the whole nation had been humiliated by this challenge to our sovereignty.
What will the Prime Minister do now that once again the U.S. is threatening to, in his words, humiliate us by challenging our sovereignty?