Peter Stoffer

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I am certainly not against another assistance package for fishermen who are displaced, if indeed the decision is made. What I am against is the fact that Canadians may question another one and they may want to know what is going on. Maybe that is what we need in this country.

This will be the fourth aid package, by the way, for east coast fishermen. Eventually the taxpayers of Canada are going to ask some questions.

My fear is that the aid package will maybe assist the fishermen and their families in a minimal way but it will not assist their communities. For example, when fishermen make money they spend the money in their community. What will help that community? What will assist the hardware store, the grocery store, the gas station or the outport community? What will help them? Will they be compensated? They were not the last time.

My fear is that the government will just look at the fishermen not at the community. As it has done repeatedly, it will go back to the province and download that responsibility to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for example, and that is unacceptable. These people do not want an aid package. They want to work. They want to fish. We believe if it is done sustainably they should be fishing.

We go over this again and again. The problem lies within the top of DFO. It is not the fishermen and their families who are causing the problem. It is the management of DFO and it goes on and on.

Are we going to be here four years from now and debate this again? More than likely we will. When will it change? Unanimous report after unanimous report by our committee and many others and the government ignores them.

The absolute worst thing the government did just recently, after it had talked about the fragility of the stocks, how precious the stocks were, how conservation and the precautionary principles were the number one mantra, and it allowed dragging in the gulf after a 10 year moratorium.

My question to any of the government members, and I love it when they get up: Why did they allow dragging at this very sensitive time? It is unconscionable.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, there is so much opportunity to go after the Liberals, but I happen to like this particular member and so does my mother. I want to say that I also subscribe to the principle of adjacency. Adjacency is something that is not often discussed in our debates. When we discuss fisheries there is so much to talk about and adjacency is the reason.

It is interesting to note that the hon. member today in a television interview said that he believed in co-management. Co-management of the fisheries just happens to be the NDP policy. We want to thank the hon. member very much for that.

I support his efforts and anyone's efforts in terms of adjacency, especially when it comes to those people in the most regional outports of Labrador and especially in the beautiful territory of Nunavut.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, first I want to mention a few concerns I have with what the minister said. He said that the government did not want to take financial estimates from the NDP. This is from a government that brought in Bill C-68, a $1 billion cost overrun on a $2 million gun registry; this is from a government that brought in a disability tax credit that punished well over 120,000 disabled people in the country; this is from a government that brought in an airport security tax, the highest in the world; and then it punishes the fish industry. This is all from a government of this nature.

I will talk about fish. In 1998, which the hon. member for Labrador and the hon. member for Burin—St. George's were present for at the time, although the member for Burin—St. George's belonged to another party back then, we prepared a unanimous report on the east coast fishery. We made wonderful recommendations that would have addressed a lot of the problems of today. We had a vote on that report in the House and, guess what? The nine Liberals, who signed off on that unanimous report, voted against it. The reason is that those who did not vote against it were not in the House to vote for it. The fact is that there were five members of that committee who were in the House and voted against it. The others were afraid to be here to vote for it.

In 1999 we had the west coast report, a unanimous report by a Liberal member. We voted on it. Four members of the Liberal Party who were here voted for it. The rest stayed away. The fact is that this is why we have problems in the fishery. We prepare unanimous report after unanimous report with Liberals signing off on them. We had a very good member, George Baker, from Newfoundland. We had a good member from Miramichi as chair. We had a good member from Malpeque, P.E.I. as chair. Now we have just as fine a chairperson from Ontario. The fact is that report after report gets completely ignored by the government. That is problem number one.

Problem number two is that in Atlantic Canada the fishery is still the number one employer and we have completely disregarded the hopes and aspirations of Atlantic Canadians. One just has to look at the Mifflin plan on the west coast or the Anderson plan, and long before that, which is where, in my mind, the destruction of the fishery started, the Kirby report. These were all by Liberals.

Now we have the minister from Nova Scotia. When will his name be added to the litany of disgraceful fisheries ministers who have destroyed a resource? I say that because time after time in committee, be it in fisheries or anywhere else, we ask deputy ministers, commissioners and people in the fishery department exactly what we should say and do and they tell us. They give us advice but that advice is ignored by the higher ups in Ottawa. Why that is we do not know.

However we do know that on the west coast 40% of west coast salmon are controlled by one entity, and that is Jimmy Pattison. One entity controls 40% of a public resource. On the east coast the corporatization of a public resource is going on as we speak. That is graceful and despicable and it has to stop now. The fact is these corporations are not going to compensate the fishermen of Labrador and Newfoundland, Quebec and my province of Nova Scotia.

If people really want to know what is wrong with the fishery, they only have to go to the wonderful town of Canso, Nova Scotia. It is not in my riding but it is a 400 year old fishing community that is just about dead. The resource swims right by the pier and fishermen do not have any access to it, none whatsoever. It is disgraceful.

We have brought up the law of the sea. Over 120 countries in the world have ratified the law of the sea but this country has not. My question is, why?

Sable Island gully has asked for protection. It has been waiting five years for protection for that and there is nothing today. We hear it is going to come but nothing has happened so far.

What about NAFO? We have made recommendations about overfishing of the straddling stocks off the 200 mile limit. Absolutely nothing has happened so far.

The reason the salmon swam up the rivers on the west coast was that regional decisions were not allowed to be made. Officials on the west coast would say “Let us make a decision. We will allow a $200 million economic activity to happen”, but it was not allowed to happen because of the management right here in Ottawa.

One of the recommendations we made concerned the 1,600 people who work at 200 Kent Street. No one fishes for lobster in the Rideau Canal. No one is seining at all in the river in Hull. The fact is that these people should be where the resource is. I know the member for Labrador agrees with me on that.

Just recently, in a television interview, the hon. member agreed that decentralization of management should be the government's number one priority. When the member has his opportunity to speak I would like him to talk about that because he is absolutely right, we must have that. People who work with the resource should live where the resource is, not in Ottawa where decisions are made constantly.

We constantly hear about the cuts to DFO. Three years ago I asked the acting commissioner of the coast guard, Mr. Turner, about cuts to the coast guard. He said that $200 million was diverted from the coast guard into DFO. We just heard about the budget. The hon. minister, who I consider to be a good friend, says that the budget is great, the coast guard is wonderful and it is fabulous that money was put into the coast guard. What he forgets is that John Adams, the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, just the other day said that the coast guard needed $400 million this year, not over a period of time but right now.

The minister is not even listening to his own Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. It is no wonder people are so frustrated and angry at this department when we have the person responsible for the coast guard saying one thing and the minister saying something completely different. It is unconscionable.

Will the people of Canada accept another TAGS program? I suspect that when the minister announces another billion dollar aid package, the people of Canada, maybe even the chairperson of our committee, will question why we are spending another pile of money on fishermen on the east coast. That is a very valid question.

Since NCARP, TAGS and every other adjustment program, we have spent $4.2 billion readjusting the east coast fishery. What do we have? We have a corporatized fishery, seals running amok and people leaving Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over 40,000 people have left the wonderful province of Newfoundland and Labrador since 1992. That is disgraceful. The fact is that most of these people were gainfully employed in the fishery. I know it must pain and hurt the representatives from Newfoundland and Labrador to see their outports and small communities dying like that. It is unbelievable. We know it happens on the prairies with the farmers but, in typical Liberal fashion, if it is an independent fisherman and their family or an independent farmer and their family, who really cares, unless they donate to the party. It is disgraceful.

This is about the 10th debate that I have participated in after the regular business of the day since I came here in 1997. We have brought up the exact same issues since 1997. Other people brought it up long before I did. Since 1992, when the cod moratorium started with John Crosbie, we are now 11 years later and we are back at the same problem.

What is the government going to blame it on, the environment? Is it going to blame it on seals? Is it going to blame it on fishermen? Let us remember the excuse of “too many fishermen, not enough fish”.

This is the government that allowed dragging off the coast of Cape Breton 4VN when there was a moratorium for 10 years. How can the government possibly allow the most destructive method of fishing when the stocks are so fragile? How can it do that? We will never get an answer from those people because there is not one. How can it allow dragging? Why the Liberal backbenchers have not said anything publicly on that is beyond me. If they are serious about it they should really say something.

We have to understand that there are many problems with the fishery but the problems start at the top. We have problems on the west coast, problems on the inland fishery, problems in the north and the east, and it is all centred around DFO in Ottawa.

It is time the government started listening to the fishermen and their families in coastal communities across the country and just maybe it will get the answers it needs.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I will mention one of my biggest concerns. There was a 10 year moratorium on the cod fishery in what is called 4Vn, and I have a question for the hon. member before he leaves; he is probably hungry. My question, of course, is about the 10 year moratorium on drag fishing of cod just off the coast of Cape Breton in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This year, unbeknownst to anyone, and who knows why, the minister made the decision to allow dragging in 4Vn just off the coast of Cape Breton and just inland off P.E.I.

We know that these cod stocks are fragile and precious. Why would the minister allow dragging, the most inefficient and most destructive form of fishing, in a precious cod stock when now he is saying that we have to preserve the stocks? I would like the member's comments on that, please.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, my hon. colleague has raised many issues but my question to him is on a postcard. We have heard the hon. minister say that the funding in the budget was great and wonderful for the Coast Guard. Yet, his own commissioner of the Coast Guard, John Adams, said it needs a minimum $400 million, but there was $95 million in the budget.

I would like him to respond very quickly as to why the commissioner of the Coast Guard says we need $400 million and the minister responsible for the entire department says the $95 million was just adequate?

[Softwood Lumber, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade is quoted as saying when it comes to the softwood lumber talks, “We're taking a break”. I would like to remind him that families, their communities and the workers do not get a chance to take a break. They are desperate. They need assistance. They need help now.

My question very clearly for the Prime Minister is, what is the Prime Minister going to do to assist these families, the workers and the communities across this country when it comes to the softwood lumber file?

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is whether the government will support moving the bill to committee. Third reading is coming up and this is a votable bill. It is crucial for this bill to go to committee. We have done everything in our power in the democratic process to move the issue forward. We need to have further debate during committee on this serious matter. Will the government support moving the bill to committee?

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Speaker and the House for the opportunity to again speak on a private member's bill that we brought forth back in 1998 and have reintroduced four different times, Bill C-206. Before I begin, I wish to thank the government very much for the recent budget in that it actually mentioned compassionate care leave. What it has announced is compassionate care leave of six weeks, starting on January 4, 2004. Although that is a great start, it is simply nowhere near enough to meet the needs of Canadians.

We all know that Bill C-206, if enacted, would allow people who leave work to care for a dying relative or a relative under severe rehabilitation the opportunity to leave their place of employment and collect employment insurance; it is the exact same benefits as if they were to have a baby. We have programs for maternity leave and paternity leave at the beginning of someone's life, but we have no program at the end of someone's life. Although the government did announce a program for six weeks, the unfortunate part is that it is simply not enough, not even close.

We have proven this. The provinces have proven it. As well, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, which is across the country, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the AIDS coalitions and many other groups, including CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, with 4,000 members, all have proven that for every dollar spent on employment insurance, thus offsetting someone's salary, we would save $4 to $6 on the health care system. The winner would be the provinces in terms of financial costs, because it is the provinces that have the responsibility to deliver health care.

This is a program that we know the government is working on. We know that the hon. Minister of Human Resources and the hon. Leader in the Senate, Sharon Carstairs, have mentioned it on many occasions. We are appreciative of that effort, Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. We are not condemning the government for it. We appreciate the fact that the government has taken on the issue and started to move with it, but my bill would actually move it a little more quickly.

What we are hoping for is that after March 19, after third reading, of course, the government and other opposition members actually will vote to move the bill to committee. Thousands and thousands of e-mails, petitions and letters have been sent from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, in support of the bill. In a recent CTV poll for Canada AM , with over 2,000 people polled over 24 hours, the number one concern was home care.

I just want to say to all Canadians and all parliamentarians that this is not a question of if someone will become a caregiver but of when someone will become a caregiver. Those who are passing on have a right to die in the surroundings of their choice, to be surrounded by their loved ones and also to be free of pain.

I believe that this bill deserves a lot of support. It is a non-political bill and we believe it should move forward.

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague and friend from Newfoundland and the Conservative Party of Canada not believe that there should be an ethical screen placed on the board? The reason I say that is that in meetings we had with the board last year, John McNaughton of the board said that they directly invested pension dollars into tobacco companies.

He knows and I know that tobacco kills thousands of Canadians every year. Yet we spend millions of taxpayer dollars to try to get people to stop smoking or to not start smoking.

Would he and the Conservative Party not believe that there should be an ethical screen to ensure that type of investment does not exist?

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of my party to debate the merits of the CPP Investment Board and the bill.

One of the biggest problems that we as New Democrats have with the bill is that there is absolutely no ethical screen to direct and guide the directors on where to invest that money. It is true that we cannot tell them where to invest in every aspect, but we should be able, through legislation by the federal and provincial governments, to ensure that this money, which belongs to Canadians, does not go into companies that inadvertently or directly kill thousands of Canadians every year.

We all know that tobacco kills. That is a fact. We all know that the government spends millions and millions of dollars through Health Canada, Industry Canada and other avenues to try to get people to quit smoking and not to start in the first place. At the same time, the government is allowing a private board to invest billions upon billions of dollars of Canadians' money in companies like tobacco companies.

A while ago I asked Mr. John McNaughton of the board, “Do my pension dollars in the CPP go into investment in tobacco companies?” He said yes.

There is no ethical screen or green screen on the board. The board invests in publicly traded stocks and obviously tries to maximize the return on investment. It is rather hypocritical for parliamentarians or any legislatures to allow that to happen and then on the other hand spend millions upon millions of dollars on advertising and other avenues to get people to quit smoking. That is just one example of a problem we have. We insist and demand that there be an ethical screen placed before the board so that it will invest in companies that do not do direct harm to Canadians.

Another problem we have is the 30% foreign investment rule. The directors are allowed to invest 30% of the money in overseas markets. The government and Parliament voted for the landmine treaty. We voted to get rid of landmines from the face of the earth, but with that 30% foreign investment rule, Canadian pension dollars inadvertently could be invested in companies in the United States, for example, that make landmines. We have no idea if they are or not, but the fact is that this is what the rule exposes us to.

Again it is rather hypocritical that inadvertently we would invest Canadian pension dollars in foreign companies that could be making landmines. We simply cannot allow that to happen. We cannot on the one hand say that we are opposed to landmines, let us get rid of landmines, we do not want them on the earth and we will spend millions of dollars trying to get rid of landmines, and on the other hand use Canadian pension dollars to invest in overseas companies that make landmines. With an ethical and green screen we can prevent that from happening.

There is another thing about this, and I am really surprised that the business community has not picked up on it yet. Maybe businesses will when it hits them. With the 30% investment rule, we could be using Canadian pension dollars to invest in foreign companies that compete directly with our own Canadian based companies. We have to ask ourselves why we would do that. Why would we allow the 30% rule of the Canada pension board to allow it to invest in companies overseas or in the United States, for example, that compete directly with our own companies within Canada?

I honestly believe that the government and the people who put this together had our best interests at heart in terms of maximizing return on investment to ensure that the pension plan is there for our children and our children's children. I can appreciate that, but at the same time we should not be using Canadian pension dollars to invest in companies that compete with our own companies or in companies that may be making landmines, or even weapons of mass destruction, if we want to carry it on further. We also should not be using our investment dollars to invest in tobacco companies, which kill thousands of Canadians every year. That could be averted with an ethical and green screen.

The CPP Investment Board will have billions of dollars of clout. It will have a lot to say about how that money is invested in the market. A lot of companies and markets around the world will look at trying to attract that type of investment. With that kind of clout, it should be at the table saying that it will not invest in companies that directly kill Canadians. Tobacco companies kill thousands of Canadians. Companies that make landmines kill or maim thousands of unsuspecting people in the world every day.

Also, we should not allow the investment board to invest in companies that directly compete with our own. Using Canadian dollars to help foreign companies compete against Canadian companies is simply unacceptable. Until that type of screen is put forward, we in the NDP will have difficulty with this bill and with that investment board.

We hope the government and other legislators will take our concerns to heart. We hope they will put those types of screens in place so we can ensure the integrity of the investments and protect Canadian citizens wherever they live in this great country.