Peter Stoffer

[Fisheries, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my hon. colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador for his presentation today. As part of the fisheries committee, I was very proud to, on behalf of our party, support the recommendation of the custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

For those who might be listening, the actual name of the Grand Banks is the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. They are adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador, but the mistake made in 1977 when we created the 200 mile limit was that we forgot to extend it to the Flemish Cap and to the nose and tail. If that had been included, we probably would not be having this discussion today.

The member is absolutely correct. If only the government had any sense of duty or loyalty to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We pay 50% of the cost of NAFO right now. I would like him to estimate exactly how he and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in terms of government, would see custodial management happen if we did indeed take over.

[Address in Reply, February 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, why does the government, after being repeatedly told about the lack of a shipbuilding policy in the country, not have a single mention in the speech of a shipbuilding policy?

Also, the Prime Minister talked about reinvigorating and reinvesting in our military, but there was not a single word on replacing the vessels and having the ships built here in Canada.

As well, there is a huge crisis facing our lumber producers and there is not a single word in the throne speech on softwood lumber. Why did the government omit these two very serious issues in the country?

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-23 on behalf of my federal NDP colleagues. I would like to mention the great work that my hon. colleague from Churchill, Manitoba has done on this. Also, the long serving member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has done yeoman's work on the proposed legislation. In fact his amendment will ensure that the registry will be reviewed in two years.

After the disaster of the gun registry, we want to ensure that this registry will work in the way it is intended.

I cannot see how anyone can object to this type of legislation when the essence of the bill is to protect children and protect the interests of their families.

Being a family man myself, with two young girls, I know the importance of doing everything we can to ensure that we, as legislators, invoke legislation that has stiff penalties and deterrents in place, but not only on a piece of paper. We have to ensure that our law enforcement officers have the resources, finances and manpower to do the job that we ask them to do.

The House may know that I have a private member's bill in the House of Commons dealing with child Internet pornography. This is a new medium that is luring unsuspecting children to various sites. In terms of Internet pornography, we need to do all that we can to ensure that the most dastardly of dastardly people, these pedophiles, are apprehended and put away so they cannot cause us any more concerns.

It is not just members of Parliament who support this proposed legislation. The great province and the Government of Manitoba, under Gary Doer, support it. In fact I am sure all provincial governments, including territorial representatives and probably aboriginal representatives as well would be very supportive of the bill.

We want the government have the teeth behind the law to ensure the registry does what it is supposed to do. It does no good for me to stand up in the House of Commons and say that these are the great things it will do and then have someone defeat it in a court of law or challenge it. We have to ensure that the law is ironclad. We have to ensure that all those people who have had various concerns with the bill have been heard. We also want to ensure that the bill does not end up on the dead list, as we say, through prorogation. We want to ensure that the Senate has the capability to deal with this and get it passed immediately.

I see the hon. House leader, a gentleman who I respect greatly, although we disagree on many things, nodding his head and telling me to get on with the speech, so I will.

I say quite clearly that we in the NDP support the bill. In two years we will be asking for a review of the legislation to ensure that it has done what it was intended to do, not like the gun registry, Bill C-68. We will not let the government forget that one.

However, we will ensure that this registry does what it is supposed to do, which is to protect children and their families from coast to coast to coast.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, one of the first things I learned in the House was from a former colleague, Nelson Riis, formerly of Kamloops, who said, “Never lead with your chin because someone is going to bat that one out of the park”.

The hon. Minister of the Environment from the west coast of Canada, whom I respect greatly, knows very well that the federal government has legislative responsibilities when it comes to the Port of Belledune and that incinerator. There is the Fisheries Act and the federal environment act. He does have some responsibility.

What we have said very clearly, in questioning from the member for Acadie—Bathurst, is that we want the federal government to exercise its jurisdiction, not to intrude on New Brunswick, but its jurisdiction, and to work with the province of New Brunswick in this regard. That is what we have been saying.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the member asks why the Liberal government feels it has the right to move into areas of provincial jurisdiction and gives Quebec as an example. One reason is that the government thinks it can. There are 35 members from Quebec sitting on the Liberal side.

Being in the fifth party of the House of Commons and sitting on the backbench, I can only assume that the government feels that what it is doing is absolutely correct.

In areas of provincial jurisdiction, I would propose that the federal government should work with provincial governments to ensure that they meet all provincial and federal obligations together. Both governments should work together. To impose something on another is always a bit of a challenge and certain provincial premiers will get up on their hind legs and oppose it.

Yesterday at finance committee hearings in Halifax we heard about 35 presentations from a wide range of groups. We heard from the mayor of the city, the chamber of commerce, literacy groups, groups for the mentally challenged, homelessness groups and so on. When I asked those representatives what the federal government should do, representatives from each and every group said it should show leadership on these issues. When we informed them that these were areas of provincial jurisdiction, they said they did not care, they want the federal government to show some leadership.

I do not know if the same would happen at certain meetings in Quebec. I would prefer that any federal government work with a provincial government in areas of jurisdiction that concern one another, that they work together for the betterment of the people living in that particular province. The much better way to go would be to work with provincial premiers, not set them aside, for the betterment of all people in that particular province.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party to discuss Bill C-46, capital markets fraud and evidence gathering.

I admit this file is not my area of expertise, but I have been following it quite closely because of media events around the world and what is going on in our own country.

The reality is that we are a market based economy. We do have government assistance in that regard, but the markets will be tainted if there is any perception of insider trading through white collar crime.

These corporations and businesses hire many thousands of employees throughout the entire country. That is good because it assists our economy; however, we must ensure that these companies are on the up and up and are not siphoning off, for example, profits and investments, and employee pension funds from within. A classic example of that is what happened at WorldCom, ImClone and Enron in the United States.

They were apparently going well, life was good and the next thing we know they crashed. Thousands of employees lost their savings and pension funds. What do these people do now? There are thousands of people who invested in the companies, had pension funds and their life savings with these companies. What do they get to do now? They are out on the lam. They will have to turn to government assistance. All the other taxpayers in the country will have to assist them.

We saw what happened in our own country with Bre-X. It was the darling of the stock market. A lot of people made a lot of money on Bre-X and what happened? It is that old adage, if it is too good to be true, it probably is, and thousands of people lost an awful lot of money being scammed on that particular issue.

That is something that the bill should address. I sure hope my hon. colleague for Lethbridge did not lose too much money on that particular issue.

By the way, Madam Speaker, just for the record, Saskatchewan will defeat Edmonton in the final game on the weekend and go on to win the Grey Cup because even though I am from Nova Scotia, I do have Rider pride. So, go Saskatchewan go.

My colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle moved a couple of amendments forward which were not adopted because the bill was fast tracked through the committee. In fact, it was presented so quickly that no witnesses from outside the House were heard on the bill.

This is extremely important. Regardless of our viewpoints on particular legislation, we must include the viewpoint of Canadians. We must, in fairness, even afford those corporate directors and businesses the opportunity to speak before a parliamentary committee to address their concerns, whether they support or disagree with the bill. They do have a right in a democracy to present their concerns in person to a standing committee of the House of Commons.

It should not be fast tracked. The legislation is too important to rush through. Eventually, what will happen is that somebody will take it before the courts and it will be tied up for years and years. In the end, nothing will get done.

If we are going to present legislation of this nature, let us take our time with it and see that it is the best legislation that we can bring forth with input from all stakeholders, not only those in the business community but employee groups, and people within the bureaucratic world as well.

Among the biggest things that the New Democratic Party has pushed for over the years is the protection of pensions and whistleblower legislation. We honestly believe, and we stand by it as a party, that if employees of a particular company or agency feel that something is drastically wrong within a corporation, business or government department, and they feel they have no other choice, they should be able to express their concerns.

It may be on a serious health issue. I forget the name right now, but there was an individual in the United States who blew the whistle on the tobacco companies. He was ostracized, threatened and everything else. However, that man showed a lot of bravery and in the end, he probably saved many lives down the road by exposing the tobacco companies in the United States for what they really were.

In Canada, when four scientists, I believe, in our Department of Health expressed serious concerns about the goings-on within the Department of Health, they too were ostracized and shunted to the side. These people are professionals. They have every right to do this. If they feel that in their professional judgment something is seriously wrong and they cannot mitigate the concerns through the proper channels within their own department, they should have the right to be able to express those opinions freely, either to the media or to other members of Parliament for that matter. They should be able to express the serious concerns they have.

They may be saving lives in the end. They should not be threatened with losing their jobs or the loss of the future enhancement of their careers or anything of that nature. If they are wrong, they will be proven wrong, but if they are right, then they will have done justice not only to their employment but also to their bureaucratic concerns as well.

We in the NDP support the proposed legislation, although with reservations. We do wish that the government had accepted the amendments we proposed on insider trading and of course on whistleblower protection.

There is also one concern I have on a personal level. If we set out maximum sentences of 10 years or 14 years, that really means maximum. A judge can offer the minimum, which could be anywhere from no time in jail to a fine or house arrest. The judge has that leniency.

I believe that if we want to send a strong signal to these people we should tell them what minimum sentence they are going to get, similar to the outrage we expressed in the House a couple of weeks ago when we discussed concerns about child pornography or pedophilia. There is no sense in stating a maximum sentence if we are never going to do it. We should make it a minimum sentence of 10, 15, 20 or 25 years and make sure the offenders serve every single day of that sentence. There should be none of this good behaviour nonsense.

A classic example of that is a person in my riding--and I refuse to use the word gentleman--who had eight previous impaired convictions. On the ninth impaired charge, he got it right: he killed a young girl of 18 years of age. He was sentenced to eight years in jail. He served only two years and was released.

What signal are we sending people when a person who has nine impaired convictions kills a young 18 year old girl on the ninth conviction, only gets an eight year sentence and serves just two years of that sentence? What are we telling the victim and the victim's family? It is an outrage.

There is no difference in terms of corporate crime. If we are going to send people to jail, we must send them to jail for the length of their time and ensure that they serve every single day so they know that if they commit this white collar crime they indeed will face serious consequences if they are caught.

I have another concern. We have to ensure that our government, our police forces and all the agencies have the manpower and the financial resources to follow up on the investigations and tips they receive. Many times our police forces and the RCMP are underfunded and undermanned. They simply do not have the resources to do the job effectively.

The proposed legislation sounds good. We can put it into law and on paper, but if we do not provide the tools and the teeth to back it up, it means absolutely nothing.

With that, we give cautious support for the bill. We wish that members on both sides would have the opportunity to speak to it. We would like to see further dialogue happening when it gets to the Senate. We are definitely in support of the proposed legislation, although it is not as strong as we would like it to be.

[Human Resources Development, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges people have in this country is that of caring for a child under palliative care. Earlier this year, the government had an initiative that palliative care leave for parents looking after children in that situation would start in January 2004, but with the new regime change happening we understand that this program may be under review and may be delayed.

I would like assurances from the Minister of Human Resources. Will this program for parents looking after children under palliative care be started in January 2004?

[Dwight Bishop, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to bring the attention of my colleagues in the House of Commons to the upcoming retirement of RCMP assistant commissioner Dwight Bishop.

Mr. Dwight Bishop has served with the RCMP since 1969, serving in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. He was a uniformed officer in commercial crime, illegal drugs, and customs and excise. He was the officer in charge in Cape Breton. He was a commanding officer of the RCMP in Nova Scotia. He was also the commander in charge of the Swissair disaster, as well as the commander in charge of the 9/11 aftermath.

The quality of this individual and how he treated his fellow officers was reflected in the fact that through 12 major labour disputes, he was able to coordinate each one to negotiated settlement.

On a personal note, this individual was born in Cambridge, Nova Scotia. He has served for 34 years and will be retiring in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. He is a wonderful gentleman and a proud servant to our country. We salute his efforts.

[Criminal Code, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I personally thought that the Senate committee, under the individual who he just mentioned, took a very bold step in its recommendations, although some people thought it was a risky step.

My hon. colleague from Burnaby--Douglas has raised a good point. I do recall that certain mayors of certain cities believed that the possible legalization of marijuana and a full drug strategy around that may be the answer. That is why we should not shy away from the debate. We need to bring all the players and stakeholders to the table and come up, once and for all, with a strategy that will work for all Canadians.

[Criminal Code, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is right when he says that increasing sentences is a good deterrent. However, will it be carried out? If a person gets 10 years will the person serve 10 years. or will the person serve just two years and get off with good behaviour?

The first part of my colleague's intervention with my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River was bang on. We should not be reducing the RCMP's budget. We should be increasing its surveillance capabilities as well as its offices throughout the country. We should also be increasing the number of people within the RCMP so they can continue to do the job that we ask them to do, which is, as we all know, an extremely hazardous and dangerous profession.