Peter Stoffer

[Stan Rogers, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadian folk music hero Stan Rogers died in an airplane fire in 1983 it was a loss that devastated family, friends and music fans from coast to coast to coast.

Rogers was son of a steelworker from Hamilton, Ontario, with family roots firmly grounded in Canada's east coast. Stan Rogers loved this country and its people, especially working men and women. He wrote powerful songs about fishermen, farmers and factory workers--everyday Canadian heroes. Songs like Northwest Passage and Barrett's Privateers earned him a place of honour in Canada's musical history.

There is a movement underway to get Stan into the Juno Canadian Hall of Fame. It is hard to imagine how Rogers' enormous contribution to the music and mythology of the country have been overlooked for 20 years.

It is an oversight that Vancouver's Geist magazine wants to fix. Geist has launched a grassroots online petition. They are looking for 10,000 people to sign the petition at www.geist.com. I invite all Canadians to Canso, Nova Scotia, from July 4 to 6 for the annual Stanfest. The federal NDP caucus joins me in supporting this campaign.

“Rise again”, Stan Rogers wrote in the Mary Ellen Carter .

Rise again, rise again, that her name not be lost To the knowledge of men

I say rise again, Stan Rogers.

[Statutory Instruments Act, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the federal NDP to acknowledge the hon. member for Surrey Central for his persistence in bringing the bill before the House of Commons and his outreach across the country to get broad support for this bill. I am sure he can also add the federal NDP and provincial NDPs from across the country in this particular area.

A lot of the folks watching probably do not fully understand exactly what this bill would mean. I would like to go into it in brief detail so I myself can fully comprehend it as well.

The status quo ad hoc disallowance procedure applies only in the House of Commons and not the Senate. Second, disallowance is limited to statutory instruments made by the governor in council or by ministers of the crown.

Moreover, the SJCSOR disallowance report is not binding. It is left to the discretion of the minister of the crown or the governor in council to revoke or amend the regulations identified in the reports. Further, and this is very important, our courts are unable to enforce it. This creates a potential conflict between Parliament and the executive.

Amending the scope of the disallowance procedure and providing statutory footing will remedy these defects, making the procedure more transparent and effective. Even advocates for better parliamentary control of delegated legislation recommend that these two defects be remedied.

The purpose of Bill C-205 is to update the Statutory Instruments Act to afford the disallowance procedure legal statutory footing and to establish a disallowance procedure. Bill C-205 provides parliamentarians with an opportunity to strengthen, and this is something I really appreciate, our democratic process by establishing a procedure for disallowance and affording its legal footing in the House of Commons.

Parliamentarians must have the opportunity to reject a subordinate law made by a delegate of Parliament. The governor in council or a minister must act in the sense ordered by the House. While I say that, we had a motion in 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. That was a motion and direction by Parliament, but still has not happened.

We had motions passed in the House regarding retrofitting of buildings and regarding businesses giving transit passes to their employees to reduce car traffic in the cities. These were motions passed by the House and directed at government to enforce, but it still has not been done.

Parliamentarians must protect democracy and therefore make the disallowance procedure more transparent, effective and enforceable. After 15 years, putting the present procedure on a statutory footing would not only ensure Parliament's effective control of the delegated legislation it authorizes, it would also authorize simplification of the current procedure.

Other commonwealth jurisdictions, including the provinces, are way ahead of the federal government on red tape reduction. Who could not use a little less red tape in our government?

Since 80% of the laws that Canadians face are through SI, this bill is of very significant public concern. Businesses, various organizations, stakeholders, the CFIB, Canadian manufacturers and exporters and chambers of commerce support the bill. I would say to the member for Surrey Central that many members of Parliament from various parties also support the bill.

It is very good when a cross-section of political thinking comes together on a particular bill. I only hope that on my own bill, Bill C-206, the caregivers compassionate leave bill, we will have the same consideration.

There is support for Bill C-205 and reduction of red tape is an integral part of the legislation. I thank the hon. member for Surrey Central. It is this type of bill that in many ways has ramifications down the road and a very positive effect. Anything that gives members of Parliament more empowerment to represent their constituents in the manner they choose is good for all of Parliament.

[Fisheries, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has an announcement about the seals he should be making that announcement right here in the House in front of all parliamentarians. After announcing the dragging and fishing moratorium in zone 4VN off Cape Breton we will now have disastrous effects on our cod stocks.

Therefore, the people of northeast and southeast Newfoundland and Labrador would like to know if the minister will allow them to be fishing when it comes to April 1?

[Fisheries, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before I give my statement, I would like to welcome to Ottawa the great students and chaperones from Upper Musquodoboit, Nova Scotia who are here on a fact-finding mission. We congratulate them.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the tragic decision he has made in terms of allowing draggers into a very sensitive fishing area off what is called the Cape Breton or Sydney bight near the gulf in Nova Scotia. To lift the moratorium and to allow draggers in that sensitive fishing area is an unmitigated disaster with unconscionable results.

Also, come April 1, the minister will have to make a decision about the hook and line fishery off 3Ps. Officials say we do not have the scientific evidence that these stocks are one and the same but by cutting the science budget so much, they do not have the evidence or they have to operate on a precautionary principle.

I advise the minister to stop that terrible way of fishing off the Sydney bight, as we speak, and allow the hook and line fishery to continue on in the spring season.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I am quite surprised. On most domestic issues the leader of the official opposition seeks Canadian input in public but when it comes to a serious issue that could have devastating effects for the world not only in the near future but in the long term future, he does not think it is important to seek Canadian public opinion, but that is beside the fact.

Does the hon. member believe that a second resolution from the United Nations would be warranted in the unlikely event or the likely event that there may be conflict in Iraq? Does he believe that there must be a second resolution as France and Germany have indicated?

[Foreign Aid, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, tonight the world will be watching the toxic Texan give his state of the union address to the American people and to the world. I guarantee the bulk of that speech will be based on future war in Iraq.

I encourage the President of the United States to start focusing on the war on despair, the war on poverty, the war on famine, the war on homelessness and the war on AIDS that is raping and pillaging the people of southern Africa. The real war that is facing us in the world today is the humanitarian tragedy that is beyond belief. As our colleague, Mr. Stephen Lewis said, “If the world does not focus on this, it is a human calamity beyond repair”.

I encourage the President of the United States, our Prime Minister, all parliamentarians and all Canadians to focus their attention on the real despair in this world, which is that of the peoples of Africa.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint John, New Brunswick, for her comments. I also would like to ask for her comments regarding my previous discussion on Internet pornography when it comes to children.

Part of Bill C-234, which was introduced into the House close to eight years ago by my former colleague and is still here now, basically states to Internet service providers that they themselves have a responsibility to monitor and eradicate child pornography on the sites provided through their services. I have received a lot of flak from some Internet service providers who have threatened me with trying to eliminate me from my electoral seat if I indeed pursue this legislation any further.

The member for Wild Rose said that he would look at something of this nature with a favourable view, so I would like the hon. member from Saint John, New Brunswick, to answer the following question. Does she or does her party believe that Internet service providers that provide the services for child pornographers, unwittingly, of course, because I do not think they do it on purpose, have a responsibility through legislation to ensure that they themselves do everything they can to make sure their services are not used for the exploitation of child pornography? In my opinion, they do.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is distributed through broadcast stations, the Internet or by hand, it is unacceptable. It should be a criminal act with a severe punishment to teach those people a lesson they will never forget. It should send out the message to those people in this country who somehow thrive on child pornography. It is beyond me why they do it because it is unconscionable, but they do. We need to send a strong message to them that child pornography and the abuse and exploitation of our children in this regard is unacceptable, period.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the French would say, oui. There is no question at all that we have zero tolerance in all aspects of our lives and different arguments, but when it comes to child pornography we have to debate it. Yes, we should debate it, but we should get it done. As my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford said, bring it here to the floor. If we can give ourselves a pay raise in three hours, surely to God we can put in legislation within one hour to protect our children from the evil effects of child pornography.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the first point of my hon. colleague's question has to deal strictly with the CRTC. It should have the teeth and the guts to ensure that the broadcasters and rebroadcasts of pornography are under severe and strict restrictions, if that is the proper way to say it. It should not shy away from it.

I believe that all 301 of us and those in the other place should be put in a closed room to watch the disgusting material. If that does not move us quickly to enact legislation in order to protect our children, then nothing else will. I agree with the member.

When it comes to artistic merit, I for one have great difficulty understanding that. I simply do not know how someone could call child pornography art . It is beyond me. Those people are sick and need to be dealt with. We should debate right now how to deal with it. We should debate it and deal with it.

I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that as a father of two children, if anything ever happened to my children in this regard, I would be speaking even more passionately than I am now. Fortunately, they have never gone through that, but there are children in this country who have. We need to protect the children.