Peter Stoffer

[Holland, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand on behalf of my deceased father, my mother, my oldest brother and the rest of us who were born in Holland as the celebrations for the 55th anniversary of the liberation of Holland are happening now.

Many of our war veterans and their families, and the currently serving military as well as the reserves, are over in Holland right now celebrating with the Dutch people the great victory of the allied forces and that of the Canadian liberators.

Again, it comes from the heart when I say as a Dutch-born Canadian how truly proud I am that my father chose Canada. He once said to me, “If they have a military like that, imagine what kind of country they have”.

On behalf of all Dutch Canadians, the New Democratic Party would like to say to all veterans, their families, the current military, the reserves and the Parliament of Canada, thank you once again for the liberation of our country and God bless each and every one of you.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to once again rise in the House to discuss a very serious matter on the Atlantic coast with regard to the fishing industry and the recent case of R. v. Marshall.

I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a couple of weeks ago basically what the government was doing to ensure common peace in our waters as the May 1 lobster season opens in Atlantic Canada. The minister said that the government is looking at all avenues and almost half out of 34 bands in the area have reached either agreements or agreements in principle after the Marshall decision and that was a positive sign in that regard.

The question which still needs to be asked is what about the other half of the other bands which have not yet come to an agreement? It has caused discord between the non-aboriginal communities and the aboriginal communities throughout Atlantic Canada on exactly who is fishing what, when, where, how and who is actually mandated to regulate the industry to ensure that precautionary principles and conservation principles apply in each and every single term.

I have great respect for the hon. member for Labrador, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I would ask him in his rebuttal to this query to put the bureaucratic notes down that he received from the DFO office and speak to the House as the member for Labrador, which I know he is very good and capable of doing.

I know that in the end he stands up for the fishing communities of his riding. That is why he has been elected and why there is a good chance he will be re-elected. However, I can assure him if he continues to speak from bureaucratic notes from a department that has destroyed the stocks throughout Atlantic Canada and western Canada, his prospects of being re-elected will get slimmer every time. That is my bit of election 101 advice for the parliamentary secretary.

The fact is what the communities need to know and what the five provinces and even Nunavut need to know is does the government have a long term strategy in place to integrate the aboriginal communities on a long term basis? Right now the agreements are short term only. Negotiations will be ongoing in the future.

We all know that elections happen. Ministers go through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans like it has a revolving door. Who is to say that certain strategies may not change as we go along? This uncertainty is scaring a lot of fishermen, especially a lot of independent fishermen in Atlantic Canada.

The lobster fishery is the last independent fishery in Atlantic Canada. The groundfish stocks are gone or have been corporatized. The crab stocks are more or less into area management zones now. The larger crab dealers in the Gaspé for example have control of the crabs. Lobsters are the last independent resource for an independent living for lobster fishermen.

Does the government have a long term plan to protect the resource and the livelihood of all fishermen in Atlantic Canada?

[Human Rights, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, May 1 is hepatitis awareness day. I extend my personal thanks and my party's thanks to Mr. Joey Haché of Ottawa and Mr. Bruce DeVenne of Nova Scotia for bringing this very serious issue that affects over 300,000 people to the forefront in the country and for putting pressure where it belongs.

It is also international workers day. I remind the House that workers rights are human rights, from those of the rural route mail couriers throughout Canada fighting for collective bargaining, to the families of miners fighting for proper compensation from events such as the Nova Scotia Westray disaster.

It is time that the House recognizes the hon. leader of the federal New Democratic Party and support her Bill C-259 in order to lay corporate responsibility precisely where it belongs.

On behalf of New Democrats across the country, federally and provincially, I wish to thank all those workers who put in a hard day's work every day of the year.

[Cultural Industry, May 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise with great pleasure in this valuable debate in Canada's history. I thank my hon. colleague from Kamloops for bringing this debate to the forefront. As he mentioned, this is the third largest industry in Canada and one that defines us as Canadians around the world.

There is a reason Canada is rated the number one country in the world in which to live. When people in other nations around the world have been asked if they had to live somewhere else where it would be, unanimously over the last five years Canada has been the answer.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River said that his party has a 17% solution to all the tax problems in Canada. There is one problem he forgets to tell Canadians which I wish he and his party would start telling Canadians about in more realistic terms. I agree with the member, his party and other parties that we should be looking at tax reform for all sectors of our society.

However, the member forgets to mention the greatest avenue in Canada for many artists from all mediums to bring their issues and ideas to the forefront. It is through what I consider to be one of the greatest things this country has, CBC television and radio. His party proposes to get rid of the CBC. In our debates in 1997 the person who ran against me specifically said that that party's priority would be to privatize and eliminate the CBC. Once that is found out by Canadians, they will look seriously at what the Canadian Alliance really means by its 17% solution.

If the government is looking for any avenues of advice, it can look at what is done in Quebec. In the Quebec version of the copyright income deduction, individuals can deduct the first $20,000 net income earned from material for which they hold the first copyright. The next $10,000 net income is also partly deductible.

The provision applies to all writers, artists, filmmakers, musicians, performers and anyone who produces copyrighted material that generates income. Since copyright is clearly defined through the Copyright Act, such a provision is very easy to administer. There can be no argument as to who the first copyright holder is. It is the creator, exactly the person we must encourage throughout our country.

The copyright income deduction requires almost no calculation and fits easily within the existing framework of the income tax form. There are many precedents already on the form, such as the deduction for employment income earned outside Canada or the deduction for employees of certain international organizations, such as the United Nations.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River mentioned that many countries in Europe give generous allowances to their cultural communities. May I add that most of them are social democrat countries. This shows once again that social democrats in the House of Commons and throughout the country take culture very seriously.

A few years ago one of the greatest Canadians in the history of our country, Stompin' Tom Connors from Skinners Pond, P.E.I. said “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, there are a million Canadian stories out there that need to be told”. The question is, does the government have the political will to get those stories out into the forefront? He was a starving artist. He starved literally. He travelled the back roads and brought great songs to Canada, such as “Hockey Night”, who could ever forget that one, and “Sudbury Saturday Night”. I cannot think of one member of parliament who could not name a couple of his songs. Stompin' Tom Connors is what starving artists strive to be, to bring our country together from coast to coast to coast.

One of my favourite artists of all time was the incomparable late Stan Rogers. His stories not only of Nova Scotia but of the entire country were brought to the forefront on stage by his band, his brother Garnet and their guitars. Their music brought out the essence of what it is like to be a fisherman, a farmer, a miner, a woman, a young person, a player in sports. Stan Rogers brought to the forefront what it is to be Canadian in French and English Canada as well as in our aboriginal communities.

I have heard many times in the House of Commons and in other areas that the country is based on two founding cultures: French and English. I remind the House one more time that the country is actually based on three founding cultures: the aboriginal community, our francophone community and our anglophone community. Three cultures define and have founded this great country of ours, not two.

Margaret Atwood was quoted earlier as saying that it is really the artist who subsidizes the nation and many other businesses. How many times have we used aboriginal art and culture for our own means to an end for profit making? It is a disgrace how we treat our aboriginal people when it comes to their arts and culture. I cannot help but notice in the last few years that aboriginal culture throughout the country has started to expand. Many people around the world come to Canada for that very reason.

I cannot help but think that after careful consideration members throughout the House, especially the member for Parkdale who is smiling back there, will say that this is a great initiative. I am sure she will support the party and get the rest of the Liberal Party to understand the importance of this initiative to our artistic community.

The other day I was at the Twin Oaks Memorial Hospital fundraiser at the Petpeswick Yacht Club. This absolutely outstanding event raised a lot of money for the Alzheimer's society. The five best items for sale were original watercolours by local artisans. I want to thank those artisans in Musquodoboit Harbour, West Petpeswick and the entire area of the Eastern Shore and the riding I represent very much for donating their time and genius to this very worthy cause.

If the people of my area understand quality art when they see it in its original form, imagine what the rest of the country must have in areas such as British Columbia, Yukon, Ontario, Quebec, the prairies and Newfoundland, for example, where the culture comes out of everyone's pores. It is absolutely fabulous.

I cannot help but notice that one of the greatest cultural icons in the country, Mr. Greg Malone, has now dedicated his time to run for the New Democratic Party in the riding of St. John's West. He is bringing culture to the forefront and showing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians how proud they can be of their culture. They do not have to move away for a job. They do not have to move away to other parts of the country, which might not be as receptive as their own communities, homes and families.

If we can initiate this kind of action, then we would have more success stories like the Rankins, the Barra MacNeils and all those beautiful musical bands and the Natalie McMasters of the world who do tremendous work bringing forward Celtic music and the Cape Breton tradition, the Nova Scotian tradition and the maritime tradition right across the country. It is absolutely fabulous.

I want to give a final plug for a couple of artisans in my riding. Brenda Huddinott does wonderful prints and pictures. Lily Snow does great work in photography. Brenda Anderson, from Eastern Passage, does absolutely wonderful work in watercolours and acrylics. My wife does wonderful artwork herself, along with our neighbours. They get together once in a while to do wonderful watercolours. They do not do it for profit. They do it because of their love for culture, their environment. This is the type of nurturing that needs to grow.

Is there a kindergarten class that does not experiment with fingerpainting? We would love those five and six year olds right across the country to expand their ideas to enliven all of us. Many times we can learn from children and artisans, regardless of the medium.

After careful deliberation, I know that this hallowed House of Commons and all the provincial houses across the land will carefully consider this very important bill and move it quickly through the House so that we can give our artists from coast to coast to coast the opportunity they need to expand, to reside in their own communities and to nurture them so that we can grow in the 21st century.

[Petitions, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my privilege and honour to bring in thousands of names from Newfoundland to Victoria supporting Bill C-232 and it happens to be my own bill on Hepatitis Awareness Month. I personally wish to thank Mr. Joey Haché of Ottawa for supporting us and getting these signatures forward in order to get that bill passed very quickly.

[Fisheries, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while it is springtime in Atlantic Canada and the temperatures are starting to rise, unfortunately they are also starting to rise in the fishing villages in all of Atlantic Canada between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Exactly what is he and his government doing at this time, prior to the May 1 opening, to calm the tensions that are happening right now in non-aboriginal and aboriginal fishing communities throughout the maritime region?

[Sackville River's Association, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this week is a famous week in Canada as we celebrate two great weeks: National Volunteerism Week and Canadian Environmental week.

One of the groups I would like to honour is the Sackville River's Association of Nova Scotia. These great volunteers lost a member the other day to illness; however, the member and the association combined volunteerism with environmentalism to protect Atlantic salmon in the Sackville River and throughout Nova Scotia.

These men and women, along with their children, do yeomen's work every weekend and every week night, whenever they can, trying to clean up the river to preserve and protect fish for future generations, as well as promoting environmental activism within the fishing communities throughout Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada.

I congratulate those involved with the Sackville River's Association, as well as all volunteers across this country.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about disturbing reports coming out of Newfoundland from DFO scientists about crab stocks, how according to scientific reports from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the crab stocks appear to be on the low end. They appear to be declining in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the reason I asked the question. That is a very disturbing report to hear from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans because of the similar reports we heard in the eighties and early nineties on cod stocks.

It was the responsibility of prior Conservative governments and it is the responsibility of the current Liberal governments to manage and to preserve the fish and the fish habitat.

Unfortunately the record has been quite shameful over the years. The five species of west coast salmon are in trouble. Atlantic salmon on the east coast are in trouble. Cod stocks on the east coast are in trouble. It was very disturbing to hear about the shellfish, from which we could gather great revenues if harvested properly and sustainably, which could provide economic opportunities for people in the outports.

My colleague from Labrador is a very good friend of mine and I am sure he is also very concerned about the depleting fish stocks.

We have a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from the west coast who generally shows great concern toward the fisheries. He has stood in the House time and again and said that the precautionary principle would be the guiding principle of all decisions made by fisheries and oceans.

I could not help but notice the other day when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a 10,000 tonne quota cut on the cod in 3Ps. That was just announced the other day. The reason for that follows very disturbing reports that the cod in that area are not coming back.

Premier Tobin of Newfoundland, who is a former minister of fisheries and oceans, even stated that in Newfoundland and Labrador they are catching the crab far too rapidly.

When I posed a question to the minister about what would be done to preserve the precious, fragile crab stocks off Newfoundland, he said that prior to the Liberals forming the government in 1993 fisheries brought in $243 million to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now it is $543 million.

Liberal times are good times. That was exactly his answer. He did not answer the question as to what the government would do to preserve the fish stocks.

My question is: Will the Canadian taxpayer be paying for the hangover from the Liberal good-time party if crab stocks decrease?

I do not have the scientific expertise to say that they are decreasing, but DFO scientists, who have been ignored repeatedly over the years, have the expertise. One of the classic examples of DFO officials being ignored was when Dr. Hutchings and Dr. Myers wrote a scathing report on how the DFO treats its own scientists. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows about that report. These very prominent scientists and fish biologists left the DFO in disgust because their recommendations and their scientific advice was ignored repeatedly by the fisheries ministers. We had dangerously low levels of cod and salmon on both coasts.

The fear which all of us have in the House and everywhere across the country will be that Canadian people will not accept the TAGS-3 program. They will not accept the ability—

[Natural Gas, April 3rd, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of my colleague, the member for Churchill River, Saskatchewan on his Motion No. 298. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

Debate on this important motion began on June 4, 1999 in the first session of the 36th parliament. At that time the motion was called Motion No. 292. My colleague from Churchill River outlined the need for a national vision in relation to natural gas distribution. He provided the House with examples of the social and economic benefits natural gas distribution could bring to unserviced regions.

Canada is blessed with tremendous natural gas resources. Canada is the world's third largest producer, and this resource sector is growing exponentially. Fueling this growth in royalty revenues is the United States demand, which some day may place our Canadian domestic needs at risk.

My NDP colleague from Winnipeg Centre described, during his debate on the motion, that gas discoveries were once considered a curse while drilling for oil. How quickly our resource priorities change. He outlined the opportunities natural gas conversion could bring into building retrofits, both in energy savings and through employment.

The federal government has approximately 50,000 properties and less than 100 have completed energy efficiency conversions since the Liberal government began mismanaging energy efficiency efforts in 1993. Indeed, the House agreed with the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre on his energy efficiency motion, Motion No. 300. That motion also called on the federal government to take action to tackle energy inefficiency.

The first hour of debate on Motion No. 298 included comments by the Reform Party speaker, the member for Athabasca, who supported the principle of natural gas distribution, but did not support this motion because it would bring federal interference into an area of provincial jurisdiction. The NDP agrees that the provinces and territories should have a say over the natural resources within their respective borders, but does not propose federal intrusion. Nor does it propose that a direct distribution subsidy would be the answer.

For the clarification of the House, the motion is intended to provide incentives to deliver natural gas to regions without service.

The member for Athabasca described Alberta's efforts for natural gas distribution which began in the 1960s. This successful Alberta program, based on community input and co-operative templates, could perhaps serve as a template for federal participation if and when a private or a crown interest expressed the wish to take up the federal government in an initiative opportunity.

The Liberal members who have spoken to date on Motion No. 298 have retreated to an outdated and embarrassing ideological megaproject defence. The federal government is out of the megaproject business, as Liberal members have stated.

The NDP proposed a national vision, not a chequebook reference, which appears to be the Liberal policy these days.

We are not proposing to sponsor every pipeline or branch line so that every home would be linked to this cleaner energy source. We are asking the House to recognize that there are unserviced regions in the country, pockets of inefficiency and high energy costs. We are asking that the House recognize these disparities of the have and have not communities and to act, to agree that improved distribution opportunities would be a benefit to the entire country.

The Progressive Conservative member for South Shore spoke in support of this motion, citing Canada's faltering commitment to the Kyoto protocol to address climate change and greenhouse gases.

Emissions continue to rise while the Liberal government hides from its responsibility to provide leadership and direction to ensure a cleaner environment and reduced energy costs for future generations. The NDP agrees that not enough is being done by the Liberal government to meet our international obligations to reverse the damage to our atmosphere which all nations and people share. The recent budget will provide for further studies and some immediate action, but falls short of the current opportunities we could be implementing.

As the finance minister stated in February in reference to infrastructure priorities for the new century, the issue will be studied and a proposed vision for Canada will be finished at year end. If the finance minister and his cabinet colleagues are committed to a national infrastructure vision for Canada, the principles of sustainability and a cleaner environment should be a guiding principle.

The supposed Liberal government commitment to rural and regional development, to level playing fields for all Canadians across this great country, requires access to clean and efficient fuel sources.

The type and availability of energy sources is a key component for business siting decisions. Where natural gas is distributed, added economic opportunities follow. Canada's raw resources are often transported hundreds of kilometres for basic processing, limiting local economic opportunities and value-added economic growth.

Quebec and New Brunswick recently addressed natural gas distribution in the region in February.

Nova Scotia has just started with the offshore Sable Island gas project, which is going great guns. The problem is that all of that gas is being distributed to the New England states. It flows right by Nova Scotia, right through New Brunswick and into the United States. I have a bit of a problem with that, although it did provide economic growth for our province and provided many jobs in that area. We could have done much better and followed other examples around the world. Gas could have been distributed in Nova Scotia as well. Eventually those trunk lines will come to Nova Scotia, but at a much slower pace.

Businesses and enterprises in the New England states will be starting up their manufacturing plants with natural gas, which is much cheaper than the coal we use at this time and other energy sources like diesel and oil. They will be competing head-on with companies in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. Those companies in the New England states will have the advantage of operating with lower fuel costs than our companies. We will be at a disadvantage for many years, until we have an equal playing field for natural gas distribution.

I could not allow a debate on natural gas to go by without mentioning the concerns of the fishermen on our shore waters, especially in the gulf area. What we have asked for, prior to any exploration for natural gas, is that a full independent environmental assessment be done on the effects of drilling or seismic work in the waters or on the land to ascertain whether indeed the proposals would be met and that they would take the environment into consideration first, prior to any exploration, so that the distribution of the gas would do three things.

First, it would protect the surrounding environment where they have proposed to drill. Second, it would respect the original users of that land, whether fishermen, farmers or those involved in forestry. Third, it would provide our companies in Canada with the opportunity to obtain a cheaper or more cost effective fuel resource so that they could compete head-on with the international markets which are now operating on our own fuel bases.

There are pipelines proposed in the Mackenzie Valley, to the far north and in other places. Those lines are all headed south. The motion put forward by my hon. friend from Churchill River, Saskatchewan suggests that some of those lines should go east and west so that we could provide our businesses which are located in regions where they do not have opportunities for cheaper fuel the opportunity to compete with their southern neighbours. Fuel costs are some of the highest costs which those businesses must incur.

The oil and gas industry described the current rate of natural gas expansion as a golden era. The NDP agrees, as long as Canada's strategic interests and its citizens are of priority interest. What we are basically saying is that we should think of Canada first and export markets after, very closely of course, but we need to be able to look after our citizens and businesses in order to compete in the global economy.

At issue is what is making us sick. Why are health care costs continuing to skyrocket? Environmental factors in human health are no longer denied. Southern Ontarians only need to experience several weeks of smog and deteriorating air quality to agree.

A national initiative to expedite cleaner fuel sources, co-generation or mixed fuel efficiency could only help in each instance to improve air quality. Natural gas reduces greenhouse emissions. There are less particulate byproducts from natural gas fuel sources.

A national vision to provide initiative opportunities, not just to intrude on jurisdictions, is the basis for Motion No. 298. National perspective and true leadership are not bad things. A national vision gave birth to medicare and the five principles of health care, and provided the incentive for the great railway and the linking of Canadian communities and schools to the information technology sector and the Internet.

A similar effort is needed to begin concrete steps toward a more energy efficient and cleaner environment for future generations. I urge all of my colleagues to support Motion No. 298.

It is true that this country had vision in the railway. Now we have it in trying to link up all of the communities across this country, especially in rural ridings and outlying areas of Canada through the Internet, through what are called CAP sites.

We have health care in this country. The Liberals and some other opposition parties would like to see it go away and turn it into a two tiered system, but the fact is that we had a national vision for health care. This basically meant that from one end of the country to the other, from sea to sea to sea, citizens would be under the same sort of access to health care. Now it is being done for the Internet, as it was done for the railroad.

We should do the same thing for energy efficient initiatives. People in northern Saskatchewan should have the same access to fuel resources as in southern Ontario or Vancouver or in parts of Alberta.

I have full confidence that this motion will be given a sweeping endorsement by everyone once they have debated it and understand the true effects of it. On behalf of all those communities in the outlying regions of Canada, in most cases where the resource itself comes from, I am sure that members of the House, under careful reflection, would support this motion and move on to greater and bigger things.

[April 3rd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be speaking in lieu of my colleague from Churchill River.