Peter Stoffer

[Division No. 454, May 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise today again on a question I asked regarding the exploratory seismic licences that were given to the company Corridor Resources from the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I raise this concern because those seismic drilling exploration leases, which we have now found out are six months delayed so they could be done in the wintertime, are right in the heart of the lobster spawning grounds off the coast of Cape Breton, on the inside coast in the gulf and around P.E.I. where the member for Malpeque is from, as well as in the New Brunswick area.

If this company is allowed to have the exploratory licence to do its seismic drilling, it will expand the drilling throughout the entire gulf. This means that the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be incorporated in this concern as well.

The reason I am speaking on this today is that over 2,000 lobster fishermen in Cape Breton, New Brunswick and P.E.I. have very serious concerns about their livelihood.

Since the downturn of the groundfish fishery a lot of fishermen have turned to lobster or shellfish as their main livelihood in order to live in their coastal communities and look after their families. They do not make very much money doing this.

If we allow this to go forward we are risking the possible long term environmental damage of a very sustainable stock. In Newfoundland, in fact in all Atlantic Canada and Quebec it is an over half a billion dollar industry. The government only spends about $330,000 a year on experiments and the science and study of the lobster itself.

I would ask the government to be very cautious and prudent in its environmental assessment of the project to ensure that there will be no damage in the short term or the long term to the lobster stocks, scallop stocks, crab stocks or whatever shellfish is out there.

There are indications that the groundfish breed out there as well. We must be very cautious to protect those species so that in turn we can protect the livelihood of thousands of people and their families in coastal communities in Atlantic Canada.

This begs another question. Why did the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council along with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not immediately put a halt to this lease before all environmental assessments were done in the long term? We cannot do a proper assessment in six months. It is 1999 and we are still in the embryonic stage of wondering if seismic oil and gas drilling definitely affects the lobsters. There are a lot of indications from the fishermen that indeed they do. The DFO spends very little money on science in this regard.

I ask the government again that the FRCC, the DFO's advisory board and the DFO itself, the department responsible for management of the habitat area and the fish stocks as well, be extremely prudent and cautious in their efforts in order to protect the livelihood of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada.

[Young Offenders Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for taking up the time of the House, but I would like, if possible, to have my vote recorded in favour of this motion.

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Reasons, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to thank the member for Rosemont for bringing the motion forward.

It was interesting to hear the government side speak about the fact that we must concentrate on health care and health care matters when it was the Liberal government that took $21 billion out of health care spending and replaced only $11.5 billion after five years. In many ways I wish the government would back up its statements and arguments with the resources that are required.

It is also ironic the Minister of Health recently said that there would be studies and clinical tests on the medical use of marijuana for those who have serious illnesses. It is just being done now. Marijuana has been around for thousands and thousands of years and in 1999 the federal government is to conduct studies and clinical tests on the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

I do not think any one in the House could actually dictate to people who are seriously ill, who have AIDS and other ailments of that nature, what they should and should not do to feel better. Yes, we have to put precautions in place. Yes, we have to make sure that the safeguard of all Canadians, especially when it comes to their health, is paramount in any decisions that the House makes or in any recommendations from individuals.

However, we have to take ourselves out of our suits once in a while and place ourselves in the position of those people who are severely disabled through various diseases, especially, for example, when it comes to the issue of AIDS.

In the United States 36 states out of the union have passed legislation endorsing the medical use of marijuana despite a federal U.S. ban. I am sure that ban is in place as the member from the Liberal Party indicated. There are cross-country obligations and international treaty organizations which have to be adhered to in the legal matter. If the Canadian government really wished to and if the people of Canada were really behind it, ways could be found to speed track the issue forward so that relief could be found for those people.

As the father of two young girls there is no question I am very concerned about the future of Canada, what substances will be adhered to, what will be in the schools and playgrounds and everywhere else. The relaxation of any concern when it comes to their health is very serious.

We should try to assist people who are seriously ill and have relied on alternate means of remedies to achieve relief from their pain and suffering. This is one reason the motion brought forward by the member for Rosemont is very appropriate at this time.

I wholeheartedly encourage the government to go forth with its studies in terms of the medicinal use of marijuana. I encourage the member for Rosemont to continue the debate to bring this very serious issue to the forefront.

These are issues which a lot of people do not like to talk about because they give the perception of being seedy subjects. People think we should not be talking about issues of this nature. The House of Commons is exactly where issues of this nature should be discussed and where regulations and legislation should be passed. This is where people on all sides of the debate should have an opportunity to discuss such an important subject.

I trust we will have a pleasant time in the House for the next four weeks as we debate this issue and many other important issues brought before the House.

[Fisheries And Oceans, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House that the first mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to protect fish, fish stocks and fish habitat.

Why did the DFO and the FRCC not intervene on behalf of over 2,000 lobster fishermen in Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton to stop the exploratory licence for seismic oil and gas drilling in the heart of lobster spawning grounds between those two areas? Why did the DFO not do that?

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely retract it and apologize to you and the House for spelling out that word.

The facts are still the facts. This is precisely what the Liberals are doing. They say one thing in opposition and now that they are in government they completely reverse their proposal. No wonder the Reform, the Bloc, the Conservatives and the New Democrats are so angry with them. No wonder even some of its backbenchers are so angry with the government.

This will come back to haunt the Liberals big time. Mark my words. They have an opportunity right now to retract Bill C-78 and take it back to the drawing board. The next time, if they want to do anything with it, they should talk to the people most affected by it: public service workers, the RCMP, the military and the people who work in the House of Commons. They are the ones to whom the Liberals should be talking.

It goes on and on and on. I can give many examples of how deplorable government policies are toward working people. Bill C-78 is just a classic example.

Following on the heels is Bill C-32, the CEPA amendments. Mark my words, the Liberals will invoke closure on that one as well. There were over 800 amendments to that bill. Bill C-78 should have many more amendments to it but they were not allowed. I have always said that the Liberals believe in a capitulated democracy: one can say and do whatever one wants as long as one does what they tell one to do.

I will not take up much more time of the House. My voice is starting to wane after wailing about the government for over two years. I ask the government to retract Bill C-78 and never to invoke closure again on something as important to the Canadian people.

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-78. I commend the Bloc Party for attempting to have moment of silence for the death of democracy this morning. I thought it was a very good tribute. I stand and applaud the Bloc for that. Although I may not agree with the Bloc in much of its politics, the fact is that it is right on with this one. It is the death of democracy in the House of Commons.

Over 50 time allocation or closure motions have been brought forth by the government since 1993. Bill C-78 is over 200 pages thick with legislation, some of which contains serious public policy. It affects over 1.8 million Canadians currently working for the federal service and those who are retired. It also affects every Canadian from coast to coast to coast.

I ask again why the government is ramming the legislation through. The only answer is that it has an awful lot to hide and it just cannot get its hands on that money fast enough. It just has to have it.

I can assure the House of the difference between an NDPer and a Liberal. We will walk down the street and see a quarter on the ground. An NDPer will pick up that quarter and give it to a street person. A Liberal will pick up that quarter, pocket it and not share it with anyone. That is the problem. That is the difference between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. It is as clear as night.

Reform and Conservative members are rightfully upset by the bill. We must understand that all the Liberals are doing is reforming Tory policies. If Canadians want true democracy in the country, they should elect a full house of New Democrats from coast to coast to coast, provincially and federally. Then we would have some solid democracy.

Bill C-78 affects every Canadian. I do not think the Liberals have thought this one through. It will come back to haunt them in spades. They are ramming it through when the newspapers are full of items like Kosovo and other issues. They want it through the House by early June. Then they will go away and say “look what we have done, folks”.

Here is my prediction of what will happen six months prior to the next federal election. The Right Hon. Prime Minister will step down. His finance minister may win the nomination to be the Liberal leader. He will then come to my riding, or a Reform riding, a Conservative riding, the riding of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre or the riding of my colleague from Halifax West, with $30 billion from the EI fund. Probably the surplus in the pension fund will be $35 billion at that point.

He will have about $65 billion in his pocket and he will ask everyone what they need. If they need a road, it will be done. If they need another prison, it will be done. If they need tax breaks, it will be done. Those things will be done on the backs of the workers, just as the Liberals did with the EI surplus. They took $11.5 billion over five years and dedicated it to health care. That was the money of employers and employees. Now they will do the same with the surplus in the Canada pension fund. This money does not belong to them. It belongs to the workers who worked hard for it.

One of the reasons we have such a wonderful country is our public service. Our military men and women throughout the world work hard on behalf of Canada. What has been their answer to them for their efforts over the years? More taxes for one thing, absolutely. Now they are grabbing their pensions and next year or the year after they will have to pay more into their pension plans.

I may stand corrected on this one point, but this does not affect MPs, members of parliament. I am not sure on that. I will have to check into it. If it does not, obviously it is another scandal we will have to go after the Liberals for.

On behalf of all PSAC workers in Nova Scotia and across the country, on behalf of the RCMP, and on behalf of the military personnel at Shearwater base in my riding, whom my wonderful colleague from Halifax West, our defence critic, knows very well, what the government is doing to their pension plans is an outrage.

What an absolute disgrace that Liberals treat our military personnel, civilian workers and public service workers in that fashion. They are treating them with absolutely no regard at all. A classic example was the recent pay equity decision. They will fight pay equity tooth and nail. In most cases they are offending the women of the country by not honouring their commitment to pay equity.

I remind the House that it was the Liberals who said in opposition that when they formed the government they would honour the commitment to pay equity. They went back on their word. I cannot say they l-i-e-d, but that is exactly what they did. They went back on their word.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the government House leader shutting off debate on a very important pension bill. Before he leaves the House perhaps he will say that he will not cut off debate on the CEPA regulations in Bill C-32. I hope the government will pay attention and understand just exactly what in God's name we are talking about today.

My fear is that the government will cut off debate on this issue as well. It is probably one of the most important decisions facing us in the long term.

Bill C-32 was a piece of government legislation which obviously was not done very well. There were over 800 amendments to the bill. I do not know, but I am sure that has to be a record. It means that the environment department and the government do not care or are not concerned and are completely out to lunch on environmental matters.

I will exempt three members of the Liberal Party from my recent statement. They are the members for Davenport, Lac-Saint-Louis and York North. I happen to know these three members of the Liberal Party are deeply concerned about the environment. I know this because I have spoken to them and I have seen them.

The member for York North, through a lot of hard work and diligence on her part, just organized an eco-summit in the House of Commons. My comments to her are very sincere. We have heard prestigious people in Canada tell us their concerns regarding our environment, especially when it comes to air quality. I hope she can promise us that she will not allow the government to gut Bill C-32 as it is in its current state. If it is not in that state, I hope she votes against her government on this most important principle for the future of future generations and other species we share the country with.

A classic example of how business and friends of the government are putting pressure on the government in order to change the regulations is the aquaculture industry in Nova Scotia. It issues a paper called “Aquanotes”. I could not believe when I read it the other day. It said that Bill C-32 was coming down the pike. The environment committee was concerned about the chemicals, the additives and the pharmaceuticals going into fish products being produced in open net systems. Its comments were: “Watch out everybody, the battle has just begun”.

One would assume that a burgeoning industry like aquaculture would want a full environmental assessment and review of its day to day activities in order to protect and to advise the citizens of this country and of nations to which we export seafood that it is a healthy and very good product for them to consume. Why would the industry want to fight against any kind of environmental protection? It is in its best interest to work with environmental organizations and the provincial and federal environment departments to come up with the best solutions for the industry to convince and protect our citizens.

It is incredible that we as a nation have destroyed our inland fish stocks and on all three coasts. Now we are to grow fish in pens. We have absolutely no scientific or biological evidence on how to do it properly and the aquaculture industry fights tooth and nail on every environmental aspect. It is unbelievable that it would want to do that. One would think it would want to work with us in order to come up with long term solutions which will benefit it and our citizens.

I refer to a conversation I had when I participated in an environment committee hearing. Bloc, Conservative, Reform, Liberal and NDP members who participated in the marathon of lengthy Bill C-32 CEPA debates deserve the Order of Canada. On and on and on they went. They were very lengthy. There were some heated exchanges and there were some very long exchanges.

NDP put forward 100 amendments. That is our record. The member for Churchill River, a Metis aboriginal person, is so concerned about the environment that he always tells us in caucus that we have to use the seven generation principle. Whatever we do on this planet today, we must think about the seven generations down the road. What effect will it have on our great, great, great grandchildren? That is very worthy advice. We should all heed that very simple warning from our first nations people.

I asked a question in early April 1998 of the then deputy minister of the environment, Mr. Ian Glen. I asked him whether he had adequate human and financial resources to do his job properly. Mr. Glen replied “The fair answer, and I think it is becoming abundantly clear to people, is no”. He went to say that was one of the challenges they had within their organization. I bet if I asked that question today I would get an even more resounding no.

The government come in with Bill C-32. It was a mess when it came to committee. The committee in its wisdom put forth 800 amendments. As the member for Lac-Saint-Louis just said, it is not as strong as we would like but in its current form it is a pretty good compromise.

We have discussed the bill with many environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund and others. They say it is not as strong as they would like but it is not bad. It is a good starting point for the future of our planet.

The government will not commit the human and financial resources to protect our country and our planet. That is unbelievable. What will we tell our children? I ask everybody here who has children, grandchildren or nieces or nephews, what they will tell them 20 years from now when they are possibly breathing with the help of an oxygen mask, when they are suffering from forms of cancer we never saw before, or when the rates of asthma have increased? What will they tell them? Will we tell them that we did not know, that we did not understand the problem?

Our lives are good right now but what about our children's lives? If we cannot think of our children, what are we doing here? This is not a piece of legislation to ignore. It is the most important piece of legislation we have in the House.

I made a statement the other day at the eco-summit because a few years ago when the current heritage minister was the environment minister she was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying that she could not wait to get out of the lowly environment department and get a higher profile. That is what the Globe and Mail said a few years back.

Also the other day I asked some very prominent people why in federal and provincial legislatures the environment department is placed at the bottom of the list of cabinet ministers while the finance, industry, treasury board and trade ministers are at the top.

Without the environment these people would have nothing. It should be reversed. Everything around us and everything we do is contained within our environment. I make a passionate plea to all hon. members to turn their thinking around. Without fresh air, clean air, clean soil and water, without the biodiversity of the other species we share the planet with, we are nothing. We are just skin, bones and minerals. That is all we are. If we cannot think in those terms we are doomed in the long term.

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis talked about big industries saying that all the plants would shut down. What a load of bunk. It is an absolute load of crap. I am sorry to say that but the member is absolutely right. It is just a threat that we should ignore. We have to understand that we must make environmental protection as strong as we possibly can.

In my remaining time I wish to thank the following people for their efforts. First I thank Mr. Don Maclean for trying to prevent an expressway through the largest urban park in North America, the Red Hill Creek. He tried to stop that expressway so that people could go from one place to another faster. It would have destroyed the air quality of the Hamilton area and we do not need it.

I also thank Mr. Paul Muldoon, Ms. Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club and Mr. Mark Butler of the Ecology Action Centre. There are many others I could mention. These men and women are dedicated to preserving our environment, to working with federal and provincial governments of all political stripes in order that we can live in harmony with our planet and we can share our resources for seven generations down the road.

If we do not, as many other people have mentioned before me, we will be doomed. That will be the end of it because without a proper environment we can kiss our ass goodbye.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition is on behalf of the rural route mail carriers of Canada who wish to inform the House that they earn less than minimum wage in working conditions reminiscent of another era. Section 13.5 of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits the rural route mail carriers from having collective bargaining rights and are not under the Canada Labour Code. Therefore the petitioners pray upon parliament to repeal section 13.5 of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from my people in the great Nova Scotia riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.

They wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons that the majority of sexual assaults against children are committed by family members or friends of the family. Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation which would strengthen and protect children from convicted child sex offenders.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have three different petitions here. The first one is from the beautiful island of Prince Edward Island.

These residents of the province of P.E.I. draw the attention of the House to the fact that the shell fishery is a vital component of the Prince Edward Island economy, that it is seasonal in nature and provides only a basic living for fishers and their families. The petitioners pray upon parliament to direct Revenue Canada, HRDC and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to harmonize record keeping requirements for all shell fishers and inform them of these requirements.