House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 63% of the vote.
Democratic Reform April 27th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is always interested in improving and modernizing our democratic institutions so Canadians will continue to have confidence in the democratic process.
Could the Minister of State for Democratic Reform give us an update on the democratic reform initiatives our government is taking?
New Brunswick 4-H Communications Competition April 27th, 2010
Madam Speaker, this past weekend, I had the honour to serve as a judge at the New Brunswick 4-H Communications Competition held in Woodstock.
Close to 40 young people from across New Brunswick took part in the event, each winners of their respective regional competitions. It was impressive to watch these fine young citizens get up in front of a large audience, present their ideas clearly and convincingly, including in the Clover Bud category of seven and eight year olds.
I want to congratulate the local organizing committee headed by Allie and Linda Porter; president of the NB 4-H Council, Kelly Power; and all the volunteers who gave of their time to support this important event.
I also want to congratulate category winners Shaughnessy Riordon, Barry Riordon, Emma Allen, Isaac Gilbert, Emily Gregory, Valerie Guilbault, Shaylee Neal, Falyn Coates, Devlyn Hooper, Kyle Kirby, Rachael Merritt and senior speech winner, Audrey Eastwood, who will be our representative at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair this fall.
All the participants did well. They are all winners and our province and country are all the better off as a result of the 4-H program.
Railway Crossing Safety April 14th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, every day, thousands of Canadians, including the good people of my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, drive across rail tracks on their way to work, to visit family or to drop kids off at school.
Today, our government is investing in their safety.
This morning, we announced $11 million to upgrade 155 high priority rail grade crossings right across Canada, including near St. André and Grand Sault.
This is yet another example of how Canada's economic action plan is helping Canadians and making a difference in their communities. This investment is already producing a positive effect. In 2009, there were 36% fewer deaths and serious injuries than in the previous year in Canada.
One accident is too many, but our government is taking concrete steps to keep Canadians safe.
International Aid April 1st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the world was shocked by the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti this past January.
In one of the most tragic events, we witnessed one nation move with lightening speed to answer the call, and that was Canada. The Canadian government was one of the first countries to respond with an immediate influx of $5 million. We quickly followed that up with an additional $80 million to the UN and Red Cross.
Could the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs comment on Canada's latest contribution to the effort in Haiti?
Petitions March 19th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present today signed by 478 students from Leo Hayes High School and surrounding areas.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the serious problem of bullying in Canada. They talk about communication methods, including the Internet, email and cellphones, which allow bullying to happen on a seven day, 24 hour basis.
They call upon Parliament to introduce legislation to target the problem of bullying. It is recognized that under the Criminal Code, it is a crime to communicate repeatedly with someone to cause them fear for themselves or defamatory type of libel. They ask the government to consider other areas where this is a problem. It has a huge impact on our children today and their ability to learn and contribute productively to our economy.
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply March 18th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I listened to quite a bit of what the hon. member had to say in her speech. She talked about the universal child care benefit, housing and taxes. I will comment on the housing piece of this.
I am assuming she read the budget. There was $1 billion again this year for affordable housing. Just a few weeks ago in my riding, we announced a number of projects for affordable housing and low income housing, renovations that are going to be done in New Brunswick. Just in the Fredericton area more than 300 units are going to be improved, which will help with energy efficiency.
She also talked about the universal child care benefit. It boils down to fairness. We have both rural and urban taxpayers in this country. The universal child care benefit allows all families, rural and urban, to pick their choice of child care. Some rural people do not have the opportunity to take advantage of some of these large daycare operations.
How does the member believe it is fair for rural taxpayers to bear the burden for everybody else, as opposed to a fair system like the universal child care benefit?
Haiti March 10th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, today HMCS Athabaskan begins its return trip to Canada after working since January 19 to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of earthquake-damaged Haiti. This government dispatched the Canadian Forces to provide relief during this crisis.
Could the minister provide the House with an update on Canada's response to the disaster in Haiti?
Committees of the House December 7th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I feel badly that he has been maligning the Toronto Maple Leafs, because they actually did beat my Montreal Canadiens last week, so we should not be maligning them too much.
We do have a new team and we do have a new coach, and this government is taking a strong stand for Canadians. We are taking a strong stand for the preservation of fish and the long-term conservation of our stocks. That is what this team is really trying to do.
We sent that team to negotiate a strong deal. We improved on the 1978 deal, and it is going to be better for conservation, better for the NAFO states, and better for Canada.
Committees of the House December 7th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked that question, because I was prepared for it.
In committee and in the conversation we were having on custodial management, it was as though I was back in my elementary school days. There were two things we always did when we defined something. One was that we did not use the word in the definition. That is the first thing we did not use.
The second thing is that I want to give him a definition of “custodian”. I took this out of the dictionary. It says that a custodian is a person who is a keeper or a guardian--not an owner--entrusted with guarding or maintaining a property, such as a janitor. We can all talk about our school days and the janitors. They did not own the school and they did not own the hallways, but they sure looked after them. That was their job.
I think that Loyola Hearn, the former minster, when he was there, actually said to the member that it is all in how we define it. I think that is true, because we have the exclusive zone within the 200-mile limit, but I think we are a custodian of that area. We are working with NAFO and we are working as co-custodians of that area to make sure that we protect the long-term sustainability of fish stocks.
Committees of the House December 7th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the NAFO convention. It is great to follow some of the members who serve with me on the fisheries committee. I feel bad; I might leave a bit of time at the end. It depends upon how many questions are asked by my fellow members.
It was interesting to listen to the debate of the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. He is the guy who put on a great event last week for the seal hunt. He is a strong supporter of the seal hunt.
He referred to the members who had worked a long time on DFO issues and had brought the issue to Premier Williams. He also talked about Premier Williams bringing up the issue. While we might not necessarily agree with Premier Williams on this issue, the member for Saint John and I might be on the same page as Premier Williams on some more recent issues, possibly.
A lot of testimony came out in committee. People were talking about the involvement, and whether the people who were negotiating for Canada on this stage had a mandate and while they came back with this deal, did they really have a mandate to do this? There were some concerns about some of the things that had been agreed to.
Bruce Chapman, who is with the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council, stated:
In terms of the delegation meetings on the NAFO convention, I don't recall any views expressed contrary to the consensus of the Canadian delegation.
That is important because that indicates that we did have representatives there. Our chief negotiators and our lead negotiators were there, but there were also representatives from industry and representatives from the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador who played a role in these negotiations. Therefore, each of the interested stakeholders had an opportunity during those negotiations to actually put some things forward.
What is important to note is that this process started back in 2005 with the previous government. We launched a multi-faceted strategy to address overfishing, the strategy involved diplomacy, governance, management reform and enhanced enforcement. Canadian officials encouraged other fishing nations to take responsibility for the actions of their fleets and to help reform regional fisheries management organizations. NAFO was a principal target.
At that time, NAFO members agreed with Canada that it was time to modernize the NAFO convention to bring it in line with the provisions of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. NAFO members agreed that we had to be forward looking and give ourselves the modern decision-making tools required to deal with the modern problems that we face today.
NAFO has made significant improvements. At committee, there were good witnesses on both sides of the argument. Each and every one of the witnesses said that the original NAFO convention was broken. It did not work. It was important for us to come up with a convention that would actually work for all the nations that were involved in the negotiations. Progress has been made on that.
I want to refer to some of the comments that were made in committee.
Phillip Saunders, dean of the Dalhousie Law School, talked about our sovereignty and the 200-mile limit. He talked about how important it was that Canada had complete control, as my friend from Saint John also pointed out.
Mr. McDorman, professor of law at the University of Victoria, stated:
And there is progress here. By the standards of other organizations there's actually been some significant progress made here with the NAFO amendments.
I've looked mostly at the institutional structural issues, and I see there's a positive rather than negative.
There were many other witnesses in committee who also told us that there are many other positives that came out of this and it was not all negatives. I understand that when witnesses give testimony in committee, people are looking for a balanced debate. In the debate tonight, the balance is on the other side of the argument. It is important that we have strong witnesses and that they be recognized.
There were also unsettling disputes. There was a significant discussion in committee about dispute settlement. Mr. McDorman said:
As I point out, that's a problem, but it's a problem that exists in all the fisheries organizations. It's not unique to NAFO. That may not make you feel any better, but it's not as if, for the sake of argument, the Canadian government has somehow failed to achieve something that somebody else has accomplished. In this particular case, they certainly have not.
When we look at some of the comments that were made by very reputable people who were part of this negotiation, it is important for us to understand that we have pushed for things that were part of this negotiation and we were successful. We have actually pushed for NAFO members to adopt stronger rules to deal with violations and to ensure that those responsible are given tough sanctions that would serve as effective deterrents to illegal fishing activity.
As a result, recently it has become mandatory for NAFO members to recall offending vessels to port in cases of serious violation for a detailed inspection. The stronger rules also brought in greater consistency in the interpretation and application of the NAFO conservation and enforcement measures.
Outside the conservation aspects of this, we also heard from a conservation standpoint of the change not just to stock but a whole ecosystem approach, which is a much more holistic view of our fishing resource.
As we move forward and reflect on the new NAFO agreement, the new system is going to give NAFO the teeth that it has always lacked. As everybody said, the previous NAFO convention was not successful. Under this agreement, on the enforcement side vessels that commit serious infringements such as the misreporting of catch or fishing of moratorium species would now be ordered to return to port immediately for a full inspection.
Looking at the cost of doing business, these boats are huge. They get outfitted to go out for extended periods of time. Not only that, but they incur a significant expense when it comes to the cost of fuel and whatever else. It is a pretty harsh penalty in itself when one of these vessels is forced to go back to its home country for any infringements it has committed.
The reforms have also established key principles for NAFO states to follow in the development of sanctions against vessels caught fishing contrary to NAFO conservation and management regimes.
While the reforms to the NAFO monitoring, control and surveillance regime are important, they are only part of the solution. The amendments to this NAFO convention complement the enforcement reforms. These changes are providing a modern decision-making process. We have all the countries onside.
I know there were some people who said they were concerned that some of the other countries would welsh on some of these deals, but in any international agreement it is going to require give and take to make these things happen.
I believe the amendments to this 1978 NAFO convention are in the best interests of Canada, in the best interests of fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic. We are better protected based on the commentary from the witnesses. I hope that my fellow members and I have convinced all members that it is time for us to ratify this convention and move on with business.