Peter Stoffer

[Softwood Lumber, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Etobicoke North for bringing the subject and interests of softwood lumber to the House, although I wish today we had been talking about it in an emergency debate. The Speaker's ruling, which declined the request, was most unfortunate. I think this is one of the more serious issues facing especially the rural and regional parts of Canada.

I have a few concerns with the member's motion. There were media reports almost a month ago that the trade minister was going to enter into a quota deal with the Americans and that he was trying to encourage softwood lumber producers in the provinces to get in on this deal. We really do not know if he was doing that because the comments were through the media. The biggest problem Atlantic Canada has with that is it would be buried under any kind of a pan-Canadian solution when it came to the quota system.

British Columbia, for example, would argue that it would be entitled to 50% of that quota. That means the other 50% of the quota would go from Alberta to Newfoundland, and that would simply be unjustified. Instead of fighting with the United States, we would be fighting among provinces. That is something we would fundamentally oppose.

As well, the hon. member knows that close to 80% of all lumber cut in the maritime region is cut on private land. We have always been exempt under the Maritime accord when it comes to duties and tariffs, as compared other provinces, from Quebec to B.C. To lump us into a pan-Canadian solution would be very detrimental to the people of Atlantic Canada.

Diana Blenkhorn of the Maritime Lumber Bureau, which represents the lumber producing industry within the Maritime provinces, has been dead set against the initial quota deal. To achieve some sort of semblance of its industry and to get things moving, it would probably accept something which would entitle it to a lot more board feed into the United States. The danger of that is we would let the United States off the hook in terms of what we would do with the $2 billion that have already been collected.

It is not often I agree with the Conservative Party, but we would agree that the government should exhaust all legal concerns prior to going forward with any kind of a deal.

This motion is a little premature because we need to exhaust every legal recourse that we have at our disposal. We met, and I am sure the member for Etobicoke North has met also, with various lumber producers and home building associations in the United States. They have been encouraging us to hold tight and be steadfast in our determination in order to beat the Americans, I guess, in their countervailing ways. We have also been encouraged to have further dialogue and ensure that all legal concerns are met. They believe and we on this side of the House believe as well that we would win those legal battles and legal challenges.

Instead of the Americans getting almost 48% or 52% of the moneys already collected, they would get nothing. It is not theirs. That money was paid by lumber producers for their intents and purposes, and they deserve to get that money back. A lot of these companies are counting on that money to come back to them.

This is not the first time we have been in a legal battle with the United States. If I am not mistaken, this has been ongoing for many years. Every time the Americans are unable to compete with us on an open market, free trade basis, they stand up on their hind legs and slap on duties or tariffs, and we know why. We know the political pressure in the United States is extremely strong. The pressure that states like Mississippi and Tennessee put on their senators in congress and on people everywhere is very strong.

The American association we met with the other day indicated that close to 100 congressmen and congresswomen were onside with Canada's efforts to stop this. We know that the price of lumber in the United States has gone up, which raises the price for homes, and the consumers in the United States are the losers on this one.

The government entered into free trade and NAFTA talks in the eighties and nineties. There were sets of rules and parameters on this one.

The fact is that the United States just cannot get up every time we beat it at something, because we have better quality, a better workforce, better production, a better product and a better price. Because the Americans do not like it, they will stand up and say, “Whoa. Back up the truck. We're going to put this huge tariff on the Canadian industry because we're getting pressure from our own lumber producers”.

The big question, which I do not think can be answered by anyone, is this one. Will the United States government, even if these legal challenges go through in Canada's favour, do anything about it in an election year? That is a good question. Would the U.S. government have the honour to accept what WTO or NAFTA would say in the final legal resolution of this, give the money back to Canada, reopen those borders on a free trade basis the way they should be--at least that is what we were led to believe--and allow these industries and their forest communities to continue their practices?

At the same time, we also have to ensure that Canada deals very openly with the provinces, and not just with the premiers of the provinces or the heads of those industries, but with labour groups, which are being left out of the conversation.

Why should small town mayors, small town business associations, small town chambers of commerce and labour representatives be left out of this discussion? They are the ones who have the most to lose in all of this: the workers in the mill, the guys cutting down the trees, and the small companies throughout all of British Columbia and for that matter right across the country. The forest industry in my home province of Nova Scotia employs a tremendous amount of people. They are hurting right now. They do not know what the future is going to hold.

Over the years we have asked the government to do a few things. While the legal challenges are on, we are asking that the government assist these companies and assist the provinces in dealing with their workforce, at the same time knowing that if we win--and I am sure we will although I know it is a bit of a risk--all that money will come back to the federal government. At least it would show the workers, their families and the communities that the federal government is on side with them, that we know we are right and the United States is wrong. Doing anything else other than that I think would be a little premature on this one.

So although there are some good elements in the motion the hon. member has presented, at this time we will not be able to fully support it. To repeat, we believe that all legal recourse must be exhausted first and that clear, open and transparent discussions should also be invoked, not with the provinces alone but also with the companies and with the labour representatives.

Also, we know full well that we have many friends on our side in the United States, representing millions of Americans. We are not alone on this one. We think it is a small minority of various companies and states within the U.S. that is putting terrific pressure on the political system in order to keep this going and make it that much more hurtful for our industries in the process.

Again, though, what we really require in the House is not just an hour-long discussion on softwood lumber. I think we need an emergency debate on this, so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast can actually hear the debate. We on this side of the House really do not know, except through the media half the time, what the government's approach to all of this is. What is the government doing as of today on the softwood lumber file?

The finance minister was in the United States the other day, we understand. What discussions took place regarding this file? I know there are many other trade issues that the finance minister possibly talked about, but why are we left in the dark? Why are Canadians not aware of what discussions are taking place right now? We are the representatives of the people. I have six mills in my riding. They constantly ask me what the government is doing. I have to go back and somehow try to get hold of someone within the departments and ask, “What is going on?” I get the same bureaucratic answer.

I would really like to be able to go back to my riding and go back to the mills, their workers and their families and say, “This is exactly what the government is going to be doing”. Right now I cannot do that. That information is lacking, at best.

I want to thank the House very much for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my party on this very important issue. I thank the hon. member for his intent in the motion, but at this time we cannot support it until all legal recourse is done and we can get back to the table to negotiate a proper trade deal with the United States when it comes to issues of softwood lumber.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, God love him, as we say in the Maritimes. The member knows very well that the Governor General does not ask for prorogation. The Governor General is advised by the Prime Minister of the day that this is what the Prime Minister would like to do. The Governor General does not just wake up one day and say, “I will prorogue the House of Commons”. That direction comes directly from government.

If we really want to know the truth as to why the House was prorogued after the change of captains at the Liberal leadership convention, we will find out tomorrow. It is called the Auditor General's report, which should have been released prior to the transfer of the captainship from Mr. Chrétien to the hon. member for LaSalle--Émard.

Would the hon. member like to stand up in the House and tell us the real reason why the House was prorogued? We will find out tomorrow that it was because of that damning Auditor General's report that is very damaging to the Liberal government.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to rise until I heard the hon. member, for whom I have great respect, say the words “government” and “wisdom and judgment” in the same term. That is what scares us on the opposition side: when the Liberals talk about wisdom and judgment. What kind of wisdom was it to have people who have disabilities go back to their doctors so they could say that they indeed they are still blind or still missing a leg, all in order to get a tax credit? What kind of wisdom is it to have a throne speech that does not mention this country's shipbuilding crisis or the softwood lumber concerns in this country? Those are the kinds of things we have a problem with.

I have a question for the hon. member. I checked with the Clerk at the table and it is very clear that the government is very concerned that we get these bills back--the ones it would like to have--because they are important. They are relevant and the government does not want to waste a bunch of time reinventing the wheel, as he said. If this government were so concerned about the respect of Parliament and the respect of opposition members, we would not have had two prorogued sessions in the 36th Parliament. Now we are working on our second prorogation. I have only been here since 1997. There have been four prorogations and one election in the middle.

The government decides that when the heat is on or when a big challenge is coming up, it will stop the House, prorogue, put on a fresh coat of paint, give a new throne speech and life will be all wonderful again. The reality is that all it had was a change of captains on the sinking of the Titanic recently. Instead of Mr. Chrétien, we now have the new Prime Minister. The House did not have to prorogue. The House could have continued. If the government were serious about respect for Parliament, it could have continued. There is no reason why Parliament had to prorogue. There was no reason the last time it prorogued.

I would like to ask the hon. member, why does he think that the government can just play yo-yo in this place and shut it down whenever it feels uncomfortable?

[Request for Emergency Debate, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for this opportunity to express the concern of the House as to why we should have an emergency debate on the crisis facing our lumber industry in terms of softwood lumber.

This crisis has been going on for a long time now and an awful lot of workers in small communities from coast to coast in this country are facing a very bleak future. We have not yet had a good and thorough debate on this issue in the House.

We on the opposition side, and I am sure many on the Liberal side as well, would like to know, what is the current government's position? What is the government doing in terms of cooperation with the provinces? What is the government doing in cooperation with forest companies, labour groups and small communities from coast to coast?

As well, we in Atlantic Canada would like to know about our exemption in the maritime accord, which we used to have. Are we going to a quota system? Is the industry going to be rationalized? Will the workers have a job come next year?

These are some of the questions that need to be answered. We on this side of the House would like to have a debate on that so we can interact with the government to ascertain exactly where we are at this time.

[Softwood Lumber, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again bring to the attention of the House the softwood lumber crisis facing our workers and communities from coast to coast to coast within the country.

What do we get from the government? We get absolutely nothing and silence in terms of cooperation with labour groups, cooperation with community groups, and cooperation with the mayors of these small communities where these forest industries reside.

Also, the government's end goal is to pit province again province by subjecting Canada to a quota deal. That would simply be disastrous for workers, their communities and the companies in these country. For those in Atlantic Canada, we have an exemption in the Maritime accord.

We are asking the government to continue to fight through the free trade deals to ensure that Canada's forest companies, their workers and their communities are represented honestly, openly and fairly in these trade talks with the United States.

[African Heritage Month, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce to the House that February is African Heritage Month.

Nova Scotia has one of the largest and proudest black communities in all of Canada. We are very proud to stand in the House today and remember the great artists, Portia White, Jeremiah Sparks, and of course Nova Scotia's idol, Mr. Gary Beals. Of course, in the political world, Mr. Wayne Adams was the first black man to be elected into the legislature and Yvonne Atwell was the first black woman to be elected to the provincial legislature. Who could forget the great work that Gordon Earle did, the first black member of Parliament from Nova Scotia, in the House of Commons between 1997 and 2000? There is also Senator Donald Oliver.

There are also other fantastic people in the world of sports, including Kirk Johnson and Ray Downey. In the area of civil rights we have Dr. Ruth Johnson and of course, the historic and valuable Calvin Ruck.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party and my colleagues in the House of Commons, we recognize the initiatives and efforts of black people throughout Canada. We wish them a very happy and successful month.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would not even mention fisheries in his speech. However I want to ask him a very specific and direct question.

On page 17 of the throne speech it states that the government wants to develop Canada's energy resources and provide opportunities to maximize the potential of our vast coastal and offshore areas through a new oceans action plan. It says energy and oceans in the same breath. I am very nervous about what that will mean to the habitat, the ecological grounds of our fish, and for fishermen and their coastal communities.

I am not the only one who thinks that way. The B.C. energy minister, Richard Neufeld, today said that he believes Ottawa will lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas in British Columbia, right in the ecological grounds off the Queen Charlotte Islands where a tremendous fishing opportunity exists for fishermen and aboriginal groups. It is an area that has sustained those people for thousands of years.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell us whether Canada is serious about lifting the moratorium on oil and gas on the west coast? Also, on the east coast, this is a government that allows seismic testing on inshore waters when the government's own scientists say that they have very serious concerns about what seismic testing will do to fish stocks in those waters.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like a nice, clear answer from my colleague from Prince Edward Island.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, page 17 of the throne speech indicates that the government is seriously thinking of developing Canada's energy resources in terms of using the coastal and offshore areas under a new “Oceans Action Plan”.

Today in Quorum , the Vancouver Sun quotes B.C. energy minister Richard Neufeld as saying he believes this comment means that the federal government is about to lift the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling within very sensitive fishing grounds off British Columbia.

I would like to have the member, if it is possible, speak on the Conservative positions on inshore oil and gas exploration in very sensitive ecological waters and the fishing rights of fishermen in those coastal communities.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question to my hon. colleague is about how in the entire throne speech there was not one mention of the crisis we are facing in our forestry industry and in softwood lumber. It is a huge crisis right across the country, affecting every province, yet in the throne speech there was not a mention of it.

Part two of my question is about page 17 under “Regional and Rural Development”. There is talk about Canada's energy resources and maximizing the potential of coastal and offshore areas in a new oceans plan. Many fishermen and their families are very concerned about what exactly that means. Are we going to exploit the inshore areas, for example, off British Columbia and off the east coast of Canada, on oil and gas reserves and possibly do tremendous damage to those fragile fish stocks? This is the type of question that these fishermen would like to have answered today, if at all possible.

[Fisheries, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the member for St. John's West and all members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for this recommendation.

Those of us who went to Newfoundland and Labrador on repeated occasions heard this from the fishermen and from the previous Liberal government in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Conservative and NDP opposition parties in Newfoundland and Labrador were unanimous that this is what we should be doing.

I want to nudge the parliamentary secretary who I know is a descent person. The problem parliamentary secretaries have, when they represent the department, is that they bring bureaucratic notes with them and they read them.

I would like to see the parliamentary secretary go to St. John's West, to the riding of the member who moved the motion, and hear what he says when he is there. The reality is that he said the government would not support the motion. Does that mean that the Minister of Natural Resources, who is from Newfoundland and Labrador, will not be supporting the motion?

The Minister of Natural Resources, when he was a regular member of Parliament on our committee, fully supported and in fact actively argued vehemently for the motion and for the recommendation to happen. Now that he is in cabinet, will he be here for the vote? Will a free vote be allowed or will he skip out?

This is something we will watching carefully because in 1998 we presented the east coast report by the fisheries committee. We moved consensus of that report in the House. Nine Liberals signed that report. When we had a vote on that report in the House, those nine Liberals voted against their report. It is hypocrisy every single time.

I remind the parliamentary secretary that we do not have much time left. Every single scientific status report of those stocks show them dwindling. They are in a precarious position.

It took the government over 23 years to sign the law of the sea. Why would any of us on this side of the House have any confidence at all that the government cares about Newfoundland and Labradorians, the fishing industry itself or the stock itself?

He said the Government of Canada does not want to turn its back on the international community but has absolutely no problem turning its back on Newfoundland and Labradorians. We will come back and haunt the government on that in the next election. The election can be called sooner. We'll be ready and waiting.

There are a couple of other concerns. The merger of the Coast Guard and DFO in 1995 has been an unmitigated disaster. We have 1,600 people working for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at 200 Kent Street and nobody is fishing for cod or lobster in the Rideau Canal.

Those 1,600 people may be fine people, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the centralization of that office needs to be torn down, broken down and those people should be put where the resource is. That would give confidence back to the industry. Maybe, instead of having decisions come from Ottawa to the water, we for once could have decisions on the fishery come from the water and go to Ottawa, which is exactly how it should be.

There is another agreement called UNFA. It should be torn apart and thrown away. The international community laughs at Canada. It comes here to rape and pillage our stocks. We used to have observers on board the ships. Try to get an unedited observer report from one of those international expeditions. It is literally impossible.

When Mr. Baker was the chair of the committee, we got one but it was so blacked out and edited, it meant absolutely nothing to us. After the agreement, they had to get more observers on board. Now they are saying, get rid of the observers and put a black box on these international vessels. All a black box will do, if we have anybody monitoring it, is tell us where the boat is. It does not tell us what is in the boat, how much fish it is raping and pillaging from the ocean.

May I remind the House that the OLGA was caught a few years ago for oil pollution. When it came into St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, it had 49 metric tonnes of moratorium cod in its hold. What happened? We could not do anything about it. We had to let the ship go because international rules stated that the flag state had to be the one that metes out any punishment to the captain and crew.

When we were in Iceland, we found the Olga . A Russian ship was in Iceland. We have no idea what happened to the fish. It was a fluke that we caught the

Olga.

However, how many fishing vessels are out there now cheating the system. We all know Mr. Tobin. When he was here, he had the little net saying that the turbot are hanging by their fingernails. It was a great presentation. It was very well done.

However, the Liberal government still does not get it. This is a unanimous recommendation by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. There were nine Liberals on that committee. They all agreed with the opposition that this is what we should do.

I do not have confidence that the government will even think about this. It will just ignore it. The government's answer to solutions in the fishery is delay every single time. It is absolutely incredible.

In terms of observance and enforcement, the morale of our Coast Guard, the great men and women of the Coast Guard, is completely broken right now. What do we hear from the department? It says that 600 positions will be eliminated within that department.

The government is basically saying to forget fisheries patrols, forget observers, and to forget about it. It is going to rely on the good graces of the Spaniards, the Portuguese and everyone else to come in and rape and pillage the stocks. It will continue to talk and hopefully it will have a glass of wine and a nice chat, but nothing will get done.

I can assure the House that if the discussion was in Ontario, if the situation was reversed, we would have action from the government. Unfortunately, Newfoundland and Labrador only has seven representatives. Many friends in the parliamentary system across the country support the men and women of Newfoundland and Labrador on this important recommendation.

Basically, we will actually be saving the international community a lot of money. We are not saying to the foreign vessels to go away, get lost and never be seen again. We are saying that they can come in. They can fish their historical quota. All it means is that Canadians are going to observe what they have on board those vessels. We are going to ensure that what they catch is exactly what they are allowed to have. That is it.

We already pay 50% of NAFO's costs and it is not working. Foreign fishing vessels are taking advantage of us because we do not have patrols and we have a government that is extremely weak when it comes to enforcements or discussions of this nature.

We as a committee are constantly frustrated by government delays. Again, the government does not want to turn its back on the international community, but it is willing to turn its back on fishermen and their families. That is a sin.

We are recommending custodial management. Let us take control of those stocks. Let us say to the international community that it can still fish, but we are going to check what it has. That is all. If we do that, I assure the House that those stocks will come back and they will rebound.

The beneficiaries of that will not just be Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be the international community. If it keeps going the way it is going, years from now this discussion will be muted because there will be no fish left.

Years ago, a former Liberal leader, Pierre Trudeau, was asked a question about fisheries and his answer was “The problem with fish is that they swim”. Yes, they do. The reality is we need to have enforcement out on the water. We believe that Canadians are the ones to do that. If we were to do that, we could assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that their initial resource, their offshore resource, belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for that matter to all Canadians.

On behalf of our party, I again thank the hon. member for St. John's West and his party for bringing this motion forward. We in the federal NDP and our provincial colleagues across the country completely support the motion.