Peter Stoffer

[Heroin Prescription Trials, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of all Atlantic Canadian fishermen, plant workers and their families, and on behalf of those in Quebec and in the territory of Nunavut.

The recent auditor general's report on the failed DFO management policies when it comes to the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Nunavut is one of the most damning reports ever on the policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The auditor general did great work. We in this party want to thank him very much for raising the red flag.

In 1992 devastation hit Newfoundland and many other parts of Atlantic Canada in terms of the groundfish collapse which has now been proven to be solely the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Two levels of government mismanaged that fishery to the death knell of many people.

Unfortunately the auditor general says the exact same management policies that happened in the cod fish crisis is now happening in the shellfish industry. We just cannot allow this to happen. In committee report after committee report the facts are clear. We have studied this issue to death. The DFO cannot properly manage the shellfish industry of Atlantic Canada. It does not have the resources. It does not have the scientific people to do the job. It certainly does not allocate any money.

For example, the lobster industry is a $500 million industry in Atlantic Canada. It spent $330,000 a year on research. That is all it spent on this most important and crucial industry.

The DFO allowed the dragging of a brood stock of scallops in the Bay of Fundy. That was a nursery, for God's sake. It actually allowed a dragger to go through the Bay of Fundy and destroy an entire scallop industry.

The auditor general also pointed out that we have little or no at sea observer coverage on board ships within our own 200 mile limit. It even ignores the observer reports it gets.

In 1997 the Minister of Veterans Affairs who was then the minister of fisheries and oceans ignored the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization's scientific advice. We got this information from court transcripts of the Federal Court in Vancouver. He ignored the advice of the Nunavut wildlife branch. He ignored the advice of the fisheries resource conservation council. Most important, he ignored the advice of his own deputy minister and opened up the turbot fishery two months prior to the federal election. Those are the facts.

Now the auditor general has pointed out that the current minister ignores advice from his own department and ignores the advice from observer reports. We can only come to the conclusion that it is based on political favouritism. It is not issuing quotas or licences, for example, on sound biological or scientific evidence. What it is doing is basing it on political favouritism. It is the same thing that the Liberal government accused the Conservative government of doing.

Unfortunately the people of Atlantic Canada do not have that much time to wait. If the industry collapses, which I suspect it may under the current regime we have, we know very well there will not be a TAGS 3 program.

Where will the answers be from the government then? The auditor general has raised the red flag, has put up a precautionary note, and has given sound advice to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to the government. We are asking on this side of the House that the government of the day, the department and the minister heed his advice very carefully, understand exactly what the problems are, and move forward in the new millennium.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure as a former resident of British Columbia to ask a follow-up question in our late show today. On March 25 I asked:

—for the past year Canadian lumber companies have been able to ship value added, rougher headed lumber products which are used in the exterior trim and finish of building projects to the United States without paying U.S. duties.

Last week U.S. customs announced that it was planning to reclassify Canadian exports of rougher headed products and subject them to strict quota limitations, thereby putting thousands of jobs in British Columbia at risk.

Will the government commit today to fight this blatant attempt to break international tariff rules and to ensure market access for the important products and protect forestry jobs?

Here is the response from the hon. Minister of International Trade who said with crocodile tears:

—we will not accept this American ruling—We will challenge it—

Basically he sounded like Churchill for a second: We will fight them on the beaches. We will fight them in the trenches. We will fight them all the way.

To be completely honest, we could stretch this to Christmas trees exported from Nova Scotia. We could talk about the salmon disputes with Alaska and the United States.

It is quite obvious the United States does not respect Canada when it comes to international trade deals or rulings of any kind. It looks at us like a lap dog and walks over us. The rougher headed lumber is a classic example of that.

The government tried to put through Bill C-55, and look at all the hubbub it caused. It is quite clear that the current Minister of International Trade has absolutely no standing with the United States government because it continuously walks all over us in everything we do.

My suggestion to the hon. parliamentary secretary who will answer this question is that instead of the international trade minister looking after his future occupation, whatever that will be, he should start concentrating on Canadian jobs and Canadian exports in order to protect those jobs, especially in interior and coastal B.C.

When will the government actually stand up for Canadian workers and Canadian towns, especially when it comes to the lumber industry? Being a former resident of British Columbia, I may say it is an absolutely beautiful province. Just like in Nova Scotia those people have a right to live, work, access resources and export them worldwide and not just to the United States.

We deserve to be respected. Our government should be fighting harder for those people in British Columbia.

[Issue Of Ceremonial Statements Of Service Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House wish to thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing this bill to the House for debate. Any time we talk about veterans it is very good.

I rise in support of this bill which would provide ceremonial statements of recognition to those who have helped Canada in a significant way in a war or armed conflict in which Canada took part. There are many veterans and civilians who have contributed much to this country through their efforts during wartime who are owed a debt of gratitude from all Canadians. It would provide one opportunity to show our respect to so many Canadians, many of whom still fight for the recognition they deserve from this government.

I think of those who served with the Mackenzie—Papineau Battalion fighting fascism in Spain. Those brave Canadians have fought long and hard to get the recognition they deserve from a Liberal government that would rather act as though they did not even exist.

Recognition should also be given to the many who served with the segregated No. 2 Construction Battalion in World War I. There are also many aboriginal veterans who have been terribly mistreated by the Canadian government who deserve recognition for their efforts in the two world wars and in the Korean war.

I am pleased that my New Democratic colleague, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, is working to right this historical wrong. I do wish there was capacity in this bill to right a couple of terrible misdeeds of the Liberal government.

While this bill speaks of issuing ceremonial statements, it is sometimes essential to go beyond statements of recognition.

The Liberal government has turned its back on the Canadian veterans condemned by the Gestapo in the Buchenwald Nazi concentration camp. The issue at hand is the seeking of reparations by Canadian veterans who are members of the Koncentration-Lager-Buchenwald Club. Out of 15 countries with veterans condemned to Nazi concentration camps instead of POW camps, Canada sits alone in not having reached a proper resolution. We on this side of the House believe that is absolutely shameful.

After years of presenting their case for compensation to deaf ears in Ottawa, these veterans were presented cheques of barely over $1,000 each. This compensation is nothing short of a disgrace. One of the veterans, Mr. Bill Gibson, wrote “refused” across the cheque and sent it back.

I just wish there were some way in this bill to force the government to do the right thing and provide just compensation for these veterans and successfully complete negotiations with the German government to ensure a proper resolution is reached.

As well, I wish this legislation could redress the enormous injustice done to Canada's merchant mariners. On November 24, 1998 in the House of Commons my hon. colleague from Halifax West asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs to finally commit to a just settlement with Canada's merchant marine.

The government has seen fit to provide an ex gratia payment to Hong Kong veterans who were Japanese prisoners of war of $23,940 each. This payment was promised just last December and strikes me as at least an effort to achieve a just settlement.

It is simply a disgrace that the government has betrayed Canada's merchant mariners by refusing to compensate them for the discrimination the merchant mariners faced upon their return home from serving in Canada's war effort.

There are a great many Canadians who have done so much for our country and who have not had the recognition they deserve. I trust the government will support the bill, allowing for all of them some of the recognition that is due.

If I may also say on a more personal note, on behalf of my mother and father and my oldest brother Arnold who were rescued and liberated by the Canadian veterans, who are here with us today, and the many others who have already passed on, thank you. To all the veterans of that time, to all the current military personnel who are fighting for freedom of our country and for liberation of free people around the world, my entire family will forever honour the statement, lest we forget.

[Income Tax Act, April 22nd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-496, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (medical expenses).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the seconder of this bill, the hon. member from Burnaby—Douglas. In summary, we hope that this private member's bill will assist thousands upon thousands of Canadians who obtain their medical prescriptions from a licensed physician.

The purpose of this enactment is to expand the list of allowable medical expense deductions in the Income Tax Act to include expenses incurred due to a herbal remedy prescribed as a substitute for a prescription drug that would qualify as a medical expense under the act, but which a person cannot use because he or she has severe allergies or environmental sensitivities to that drug.

I wish to thank the environmental health clinic of Nova Scotia, which is in my riding, in Fall River, for helping us to draft the legislation and all those people in Canada who have supported the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Fisheries And Oceans Canada, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general released the most damning indictment to date of the management policies of the DFO.

The auditor general hinted that the same mismanagement that led to the collapse of the cod fishery is now leading toward the total collapse of the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada.

On decision making within the department he had this to say:

The absence of a fisheries policy that fully reflects sustainability concepts means that decisions are made on an ad hoc and inconsistent basis rather than as part of an overall framework.

We found resource use decisions in the shellfish fisheries that are inconsistent with the concept of an economically viable industry.

The department's actions have encouraged increased harvesting capacity...even though there is uncertainty about how long the recent increases in this stock will last.

We have already seen the movie cod one. No one in Atlantic Canada wants to see the sequel, shellfish two.

[Fisheries And Oceans, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately in 1997 the former minister who was in the House ignored the advice of four different people and opened up the turbot fishery in Newfoundland.

Now the current minister is also ignoring advice from his department's observer reports. The auditor general is hinting to us that the environment is absolutely ripe for a total collapse of the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada.

We have seen the movie cod one. Do not let us see the movie shellfish two. It will be disastrous for Atlantic Canadians. It will be disastrous for the taxpayers of the country.

[Fisheries And Oceans, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has just released his most damning report to date on the operations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

This evening the House of Commons will vote on Bill C-27, an agreement to conserve and manage the fish stocks outside our 200 mile limit. Yet the auditor general said, although parliamentary procedure will not let me show the map, that we do not have the capability or enforcement possibilities to contain our shellfish industry within our 200 mile limit.

How does the government expect to enforce the agreement on the high seas when we do not have the capability to monitor the fishery within our own 200 mile limit?

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the Marine Workers Federation and other organizations on the west coast, on central inland waters and on the east coast. The reason I am rising is because of a very fundamental and important issue to my colleagues on the east coast, specifically in Atlantic Canada in my home town of Halifax.

What this country does not have, and I will repeat it throughout my four minute presentation, is an industrial strategy for a shipbuilding policy. We just do not have one. Italy has one. France has one. Britain has one. Spain has one. Korea has one. China has one. The United States has one. We do not, and we are a mariner nation.

I asked a question of the Minister of Industry in the House. He has been in that portfolio for six years. I asked him whether he would at least meet with these people, the unions and the workers, to discuss their concerns. His answer was no.

For six years Les Holloway, head of Marine Workers Federation in Atlantic Canada, has been asking to meet with the minister, and the minister's answer is no.

My question is quite clear. I want the parliamentary secretary, or whoever will respond for the government, to tell me why the government is refusing to meet with these workers.

Government members say that they have open, transparent policies, that they want to be open to Canadians. However, in an era of solidarity, in an era of co-operation which I have heard the government constantly preach about for the last six years, it is unbelievable that it would act in the way that it does.

Mr. Buzz Hargrove, head of CAW, is aligned with the Marine Workers Federation as is Mr. Irving who represents one of the largest corporations on the planet, a billionaire. An empire builder, Mr. Irving, and a labour activist, Mr. Hargrove, two people from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, are singing out of the same hymn book. They are both saying that the country needs an industrial policy for shipbuilding.

Why is the government not grabbing the opportunity in co-operation, in transparency, in openness and in fairness? It could put these two people in a room with the government industry officials and come up with a policy that will benefit thousands of Canadians in hundreds of communities?

Why is the government so intransigent and not willing to help Marystown Shipyard in Newfoundland; Saint John, New Brunswick; Halifax, Nova Scotia; the Pictou yards; Vancouver; the Great Lakes; and ports in Quebec? It is probably because it is a central based government and the extremes of Canada outside this place mean absolutely nothing to it.

If the government can be very proactive when it comes to the high tech and the aerospace industries and give them hundreds of millions of dollars, all I am saying is why can it not come up with an industrial policy for shipbuilding. Why will the minister not meet with the workers to come up with a decent proposal?

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak again but a couple of issues have just risen that I think need clarification.

I know it is not question and answer period but I want to reiterate something. My colleague from St. John's West is correct on what happened in committee. We had agreed on a certain wording of a piece of legislation. Unfortunately it has been changed.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can ask the department for complete clarification one more time and table that response in the House so that not only my colleague from St. John's West but the Bloc, the Reform and we can have a clear answer on what the department sees as a response.

I have another question for the parliamentary secretary. If Bill C-27 passes in the House and passes in the Senate, how quickly will we be able to sign the law of the sea agreement? Will Canada sign it? Will the government do it immediately or will it wait? I think that is a very important question. I know the parliamentary secretary cannot respond right now. If he could agree to table those responses in the House, we would greatly appreciate it on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, have a great Easter, you and your family, and to everyone in the House.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly ask the parliamentary secretary for fisheries and oceans a couple of questions.

Previously the member for Delta—South Richmond indicated a concern about UN conversations at meetings or groups that he had been to a few years previously. He raised a couple of very interesting points about the possibility that Canada may have reduced any kind of managerial control over or opportunity to toughen our conservation laws, especially on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

I would like to ask if it is at all possible for the parliamentary secretary to respond to the Reform member's assertions and if he could table any kind of response to the House of Commons so that all of us could review the comments from the department and the government on what the member said.

I wonder how the member got a holiday named after him. I guess he was lucky in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you, all the pages and all of my political colleagues in the House of Commons, as well as the people of Canada, a very happy Easter and a very restful holiday.