Peter Stoffer

[National Defence, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the defence minister. This government is leading this country down a very dangerous path with its ongoing discussions with the United States on national missile defence.

Regardless of that, the three territorial leaders of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut wish to represent their constituents and ask to be at the table of any talks with the United States with regard to national missile defence. Will the government now announce today that the three territorial leaders will have the opportunity to represent their constituents in any talks regarding national missile defence?

[Hurricane Juan, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one of the major concerns of any elected government should be the care of the people who need the care the most.

Recently in Nova Scotia we had hurricane Juan which devastated many people throughout our area. The fact is it devastated those people on low incomes and on social assistance more than any others. In fact, we found out today that the federal auditors will not even reimburse those people on social assistance or low income for their food expenses during hurricane Juan. It is absolutely unbelievable. We also found out that this is the Liberal policy throughout the entire country in terms of disasters.

What we are asking the federal government to do is back the hounds off, look after those people and reimburse their expenses for the loss of food during hurricane Juan.

[Tulsequah Chief Mine, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in northern British Columbia in the Taku watershed lies the beautiful Taku River which is being contaminated by the Tulsequah Chief Mine.

In 1995 the Department of the Environment insisted that the British Columbia government negotiate with Redfern Resources to clean up the site immediately within one year. It is now 2004 and there still has been no action. The law is being broken and wild salmon and a viable commercial fishery are being put at risk by ongoing toxic contamination from the site. It should have been cleaned up years ago.

The contamination of this transboundary river could put Canada in violation of agreements we made under the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the International Boundary Waters Treaty.

Environment Canada is not enforcing Canadian law. At this time we would like to thank David MacKinnon of the Transboundary Watershed Alliance, and the Tlingit people of the Taku for bringing this issue to the attention of members of Parliament.

Clean up the site once and for all.

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a difference between what I would interpret to be a co-operative fishery and a communal fishery.

A co-operative fishery would be the example on Fogo Island in Newfoundland where the people operate through a co-op, through a co-management basis, which means that decisions on the fishery are done mutually between DFO and the fishing community. As well, that fishing community has obligations to pay, for example, for monitoring, for science reports, et cetera, but DFO does have the final say in that regard.

A communal fishery, as I see it, is where we have a group of people, for example in the Eskasoni Band in Nova Scotia. Let us say that band is issued 10 licences. It is then the band that decides which one of its people will be offered the rights to fishing and how that money, if there is any from the revenue sources of that, will go back into the band. That is my understanding of how that is supposed to work. However I have heard that there has been some favouritism as to who gets the licence and some of the difficulties with that.

My colleague from the south shore definitely brings up a very important point. We should not just give fishing licences and the ability to fish to just anybody off the street. It is a very hazardous and dangerous situation. He knows all too well, as I do in my riding, that every single year we lose people from our small coastal communities to the treacherous waters. These fishermen are experienced and even the most experienced fishermen can have great difficulty and risk their lives sometimes.

The lobster fishery, for example, is not an easy thing to partake in. It takes a lot of time to be properly trained and to understand the weather. One also needs the fishing gear and the ability to fish properly. This is why, when it comes to communal licences being issued, there should be opportunities for proper training and so on. We cannot just give someone a licence and tell him or her to go fish. It simply cannot be done.

The hon. gentleman also has other questions which I would have assumed would have been vetted by the department and the minister long before they introduced the bill. This shows us that the bill is a bit ad hoc. We also do not believe, because of this late stage in the game, that the government is very serious about it.

If we look at it objectively without dissecting it, we could almost say that we can understand what the government is trying to do. There are some good points and some other things that need to be rectified but by doing it at this late stage, we do not believe government members are very serious at all. They are just trying to muddy the waters for their own election benefits. Fortunately, we on this side of the House see through that and will be mentioning that on the doorsteps of Canada.

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I may have been misunderstood in some of my comments. There is no question that it is a priority, but it is a delayed priority.

The government has introduced the bill, but if an election is called the bill will die on the Order Paper. The reality of what I am trying to stress is that we have many issues dealing with aboriginal and non-aboriginal people when it comes to access to the fisheries. I do not believe that introducing a bill at this late stage of the game is the way to do it. If the government were serious about this it would have introduced a bill of this nature a long time ago and put it forward for serious debate.

To have a debate of this nature this late in the game on such a serious issue just shows the government's priorities, which is that there is no priority when it comes to this issue. The government will say “Look what we are trying to do but unfortunately there is an election”. We never heard the minister say that if the Liberals were re-elected they would reintroduce the bill. No, what we have, this is it.

I wish my colleague from British Columbia future good luck. She is a great member of the House of Commons but, unfortunately, circumstances dictate that she may not be back again. Although I am on the NDP side, I must say that it has been a pleasure working with her on many issues.

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are debating Bill C-33 today. It is rather insulting that a temporary Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would introduce a bill this late in the mandate when we all know that an election could be called within a few weeks or even a few days.

The bill deals with aboriginal issues and should not be debated lightly. The issue of giving aboriginal people their rightful due access to the fishery resource has been quite a contentious issue throughout Canada for some time.

I could go back in history for quite a long time, but I will just go back as far as the Marshall decision. My colleague from the Bloc was right. In September 1999 the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Marshall case. Why did this issue go to the Supreme Court? It went because the Liberals refused to negotiate with aboriginal people at that time. They would not deal with them and suggested they take the matter to court. They took it to court and the aboriginal people won yet again.

The government took quite a long time to figure out how much that case cost Canadian taxpayers. The Marshall decision cost Canadian taxpayers $750 million. Would it have been more cost effective to the taxpayer if the government had negotiated with Donald Marshall and the aboriginal groups in Atlantic Canada, such as the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy? It probably would have. However, the Liberals did not do that. They decided to go to litigation instead.

The Liberal government is not a party of negotiation but rather a party of dictatorship. If people do not like the rules, the government urges them to go to court. In this particular case the aboriginal people won. As a little sidebar, disabled veterans took their case to court, but unfortunately, they lost and that decision has left a bitter pill in the mouths of many veterans in organizations throughout the country.

Bill C-33 basically corrects an addition that was done when the House of Commons Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations reviewed the legislation. The committee has been at it for quite a while regarding some concerns brought up by aboriginals. Nobody on this side of the House is denying the inherent right of aboriginal people to aquatic resources in terms of the fishery.

We believe they should be equal partners in the debate. We believe they should be equal partners when it comes to access regarding quotas, and when they fish, how they fish, and with what they fish. They have an inherent right to be at the table when decisions are made.

The government has effectively split aboriginal communities against one another. We just need to look to the west coast for an example. The Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, an aboriginal group, fishes predominantly in the salt waters off the west coast. It has been pitted against aboriginal groups which fish, for example, on the Fraser River. There are two sets of rules. The government has pitted those aboriginal groups against one another. That is not negotiation. That is simply divide and conquer and is simply unacceptable.

We in the NDP have been saying for a long time that aboriginal people, along with non-aboriginal groups, regardless of whether they fish up river or in salt water, should be brought together to the table to negotiate these deals. This would finally provide a community-based and cooperative co-management of the fishery.

One of the problems we have is that management decisions are made in Ottawa at 200 Kent Street and brought down to the water, instead of having decisions brought from the water back to Ottawa. Decisions should not be made and then groups brought together to be asked what they think.

We know what to do with a particular species and how it should be fished. Aboriginal groups, non-aboriginal groups, and coastal communities should be brought together and allowed to be part of the decision making process. We have had success with that before.

The Fogo Island co-op is a fine example of a co-op that works quite well. In Sambro, Nova Scotia, there is a co-operative fishery going on there. There are a few hiccups here and there but it works fairly well. That is what happens when fishermen and their families are allowed to be part of the decision making process.

When I say fishermen and their families, I also include the aboriginal people. I do not differentiate when it comes to fishermen. I believe they have rights and access to the fishery but I believe they also have a right and responsibility in the decision making process of how those quotas are divvied up, what gear type should be used and when they should be fishing, et cetera.

What we have had for many years is a corporate concentration of the resource. We now have a company like the Fishing Alliance of Nova Scotia which represents approximately 60 small processors in the province. The processors are saying that they should have access to the quota in order for their businesses to stay alive. They make a very valid point but at the same time fishermen are saying that they should have the right to sell their fish wherever they want.

Again, this is a rather contentious debate. Both sides make valid points but the worry is that the resource will become concentrated in fewer hands, that there will be fewer voices at the table and that there will be less economic opportunity to access a renewable resource.

We are saying that DFO should facilitate those meetings and bring the people together so that a long term plan can be made in order to decide exactly what process we should be going through. It is not that difficult.

Officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could make their lives a lot easier if they got out of 200 Kent Street and realized once and for all that the fishery is a renewable resource. However, if it were done correctly it could sustain economic livelihood in Canada for a long time. That includes the aboriginal communities, not just those aboriginal communities on the east or west coasts, but the aboriginal communities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and other provinces where we have a great inland commercial fishery.

I have been to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and Flin Flon, Manitoba, where a large number of aboriginal people make their livelihood from fishing in the great lakes of the northern provinces. However the way in which DFO operates, it makes their lives much more difficult.

We are saying that aboriginal groups should be brought to the table when it comes to the decision making process on the quota and access, and exactly how it should go.

I have very little confidence in the government to enact any positive legislation. Iinstead of dividing and conquering fishing people, it should be bringing them together. Decisions are made in the ivory tower. They are vetted on down and people are more or less allowed to say what they would like, but the fact is that the decisions are already made and that is the end of it. That is wrong.

Ever since 1984, we have spent close to $4.5 billion of taxpayer money readjusting the east coast fishery, let alone how much we have spent on the west coast adjusting the west coast fishery. It is all because of mismanagement by the federal government.

What we are saying, quite clearly, is that if the government wants to save money and have a better fishery, it should invite all stakeholders of the resource together and treat them as equals. In my dealings with aboriginal people throughout the country, they are saying very clearly that they have an inherent right to access the resource. We agree with them. They are also saying that they want to work with their non-aboriginal brothers and sisters in the fishing industry. They want to work together were they can all share the country's bounty.

If this is done correctly, their great-great-grandkids will be able to access the resource. However the way it is going, with various species throughout the country, we are seeing the decline in major stocks throughout the country and, for that matter, around the world. It is obvious to the government that what it is doing is simply wrong.

The Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans came up with a unanimous report in regard to our outer 200-mile limit on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish cap. Nine Liberals on the committee signed off on that report only to have the minister at that time completely reject the report out of hand.

The committee was trying to protect a renewable resource from overfishing, not only from the domestic side but from foreign overfishing. What we basically said in the report was that NAFO simply did not work, that is was broken, that it was costing us a lot of money and that we were not getting any effort for it.

In today's Montreal Gazette it indicates that 90% of overfishing violations are never charged. These are foreigners who come in, rape and pillage our waters and we let them get away with it. That is simply unacceptable. A fishing violation is a fishing violation. We cannot harm these stocks any more than we are already doing. We need to fish them in a sustainable manner. The best way to do that is by bringing groups together and working in a community based, co-operative co-management way. If we do that we will have great success in the future.

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Newfoundland likes to teach us all a little history. I am sure a little history that he probably does not wish to recall is that the Conservatives were in charge of the fisheries department between 1984 and 1993 and there were many problems back then.

That is not the whole premise. I agree with the hon. member when he talks about his distrust in the minister for introducing a bill now, just prior to an election. How committed is the minister and the government to the changes when it comes to aboriginal fisheries?

In committee the other day we heard witnesses from British Columbia who indicated a particular group of aboriginal people were drift netting within the Fraser River, an illegal act. DFO recognizes that it is an illegal act. It does great harm to the resource. We asked the department officials what they were doing to stop that, and their answer was, “We are working with them”. I am sure that for anyone else, under any other circumstances, the letter of the law would have been thrown at them.

No one was arguing on our committee that aboriginal people have an access and a right to fisheries, as long as, and we have seen this on the east coast, the cooperation and acceptance is done in accordance with the rules that are in place. The law is the law of the land.

I would like the member to comment on what he thought of those comments, when the DFO officials said that they are working with people instead of actually enforcing it.

Also, the Marshall decision was a Supreme Court decision. The government forced aboriginal people to use the Supreme Court to ensure that. Instead of negotiating with them, it went to litigation. That ended up costing us $750 million. I would like the member's comments on that please.

[Shipbuilding Industry, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to shipbuilding, the government completely ignores the interests of all of Canada.

With the recent announcement of the naval vessel replacement program, all the opposition has asked for is that the government commit over $2 billion worth of taxpayers' money to Canadian shipyards to build Canadian ships using the Canadian industry and Canadian workers.

Why is it so difficult for the government to say yes to the Canadian industry and Canadian workers?

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that its main mandate is the protection of fish and fish habitat but it appears that DFO has now changed its name to the department for oil.

The department's own scientists say that there are down to 130 northern bottlenose whales left in the world and they are off Sable Island Gully right now. The government's own scientists say that these animals should be protected under an endangered species act but the government refuses to act because it may interfere in oil and gas exploration.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Why are these 130 bottlenose whales not protected?

[The Armenian People, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House and all the people listening that if the House of Commons wants to deal with the issue, then let us have a vote on it now and move it forward.

I have information in front of me that the Ontario legislature was discussing this in 1980. The national assembly of Quebec was also discussing this in April 1980. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on July 23, 1984, stated, and I quote Mr. Stevens who said that “We will make representation to the General Assembly of the United Nations to recognize and condemn the Armenian genocide and to express abhorrence of such actions”.

The Liberal Party of Canada in 1984 abdicated setting aside a special day once a year in recognition of events such as the Armenian genocide. The NDP spoke about this in December 1989. It goes on and on.

Here we are in 2004 still speaking about it. Today, if people were not following the debate, they would be very confused about what is happening.

I have a letter from the ambassador of Turkey. In one of the paragraphs he states that the truth about what happened between Turks and Armenians is there in history for clear minds to study. The very fact that Armenians are so persistent to have the House adopt a motion to attest that the history was genocide is indeed a testimony that it was not.

I have a letter from the Armenian National Committee of Canada. It states “I am convinced of your response. You have always shown general understanding of the historical fact of the Armenian genocide. We ask that you give precious support for Motion No. 380”.

I have another letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that says we should be careful what we do. We have one side saying no; we have another side saying yes; and we have someone in the middle saying we should be careful what we do.

I have spoken to the hon. member from Brampton and I know that this debate must be a very emotional time for him, his family and his ancestry.

My wife's aunt is married to an Armenian in Sacramento, California. A few years ago I spoke to him about this very issue. He said he did not believe he would ever live to see the day when the current country of Turkey recognizes what happened back in 1915.

I say very clearly that we have to call this for what it was. It was a genocide--the mass slaughter of a bunch of wonderful people. They were killed for whatever reason. We can debate that until the cows come home, but they were murdered and slaughtered.

The fact is that nobody is blaming the current Turkish government for what happened in 1915. All we are doing in the House of Commons is recognizing that the tragic event took place. We are calling it very clearly what it was.

There was a poem written by Lorne Shirinian and Alan Whitehorn. I say this because this poem says a lot. I was born in Holland and my parents and oldest brother were liberated by Canadian sacrifices. At that time the Nazi regime of Germany did some terrible atrocities to the people of Europe and, for that matter, the Jewish people as well. We just had a day of remembrance for the Jewish holocaust.

When groups of people are out there in the world today being harassed, slaughtered, killed or in any way defamed because of their nationality, religion, ethnicity or whatever, then we as parliamentarians in Canada must stand up against that.

We must remember the genocide for the following poem:

We must remember. Remember and learn. Remember and tell. But also remember and live.

The last line is the most important:

And some day, remember and forgive.

That little poem summarizes this entire debate. We offer recognition to the Armenian survivors. We probably do not have many of them left, but to the children who are here and know the stories of their ancestors we can say once and for all that we remember what happened so that we can prevent these types of atrocities from ever happening again.

No one in this House or anyone else who I have referred to is in any way insinuating that the Turkish government is responsible for what happened. We are just offering our assistance to the Turkish government and to the Armenian people to get together, bury the hatchet, as they say, and work toward a common and lasting peace so that some day we will remember and forgive.