Peter Stoffer

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me as the fisheries critic for the federal NDP to rise in the House to speak about a very important piece of legislation. We do support it although we would like to see accepted a few of the amendments being put forward to make the legislation even stronger.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for his expert legal opinion when he offered our committee help. He is a fine member of the Bloc Quebecois. His expertise in helping us draft some of the legislation was greatly appreciated.

There are also three other people I would like to acknowledge publicly who assisted me in deliberations over the bill: Professor Tony Charles of St. Mary's University; Professor Trevor Kenchington from Musquodoboit Harbour, Nova Scotia; and Mr. Sam Elsworth of the Sambro fisheries in Nova Scotia who is one of the finest experts when it comes to fisheries management and the international fisheries agreements of Canada.

A former prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, once said “The problem with fish is that they swim and that is the problem”. We need international agreements to control, conserve and protect fish stocks so that we can protect not only the thousands of jobs in coastal communities in our country but the millions of jobs in coastal communities around the world.

The member for Vancouver Quadra was correct when he said that the Law of the Sea Convention was enacted in 1982. We are now in 1999 and we have not ratified it. Canada has dragged its heels for 17 years. The reason is that they waited for me to be elected as a member of parliament. Now the legislation is before the House and I greatly appreciate the government and you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing that very simple fact.

Bill C-27, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, was part of an initiative in 1995 when the Estai ship from Spain caught headlines around the world. For the first time in a long time Canada got tough and shot at someone. We did not want to hurt anyone. We just wanted to scare them a bit. The former fisheries minister, the present Premier of Newfoundland, ordered it. He became known as Captain Canada and the hero of Canada. Everyone loved him.

What really happened with the Estai ship? The ship went back to Spain along with all the fish that had been caught. It cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland $110,000 to keep the crew in Newfoundland. I love Newfoundland as much as anyone else.

The eloquent speaker from St. John's will speak on this matter. He would love everyone to go to Newfoundland to visit his province. The only thing is that he will not pay for it. We did. We paid $110,000 through our taxes for the Spanish crew to stay in Newfoundland.

What resulted in the end? We now have Bill C-27, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The parliamentary secretary from the beautiful area of Malpeque, P.E.I., stated quite clearly, although it is not written, that their intention is that Canadian fish caught by Canadian fishermen be processed in Canadian plants. My party and I have been saying that since we got here. As always, a good idea takes a long time before it sinks in. We hope Canadian fish will be caught by Canadian fishermen and women and processed by Canadian workers in Canadian plants.

One of my amendments to the bill will be that fisheries officers, when they realize there is an infraction in our seas, will have to ask permission from the foreign state in order to enact any kind of action.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was incorrect ever so slightly by saying we could not do anything. I know that if officers suspect a wrongdoing, they can board the ship. They have to notify the foreign nation of the action being taken. If I am correct, 72 hours notice is needed for the foreign nation to respond to Canada on exactly what action can or cannot be taken. That is an awfully long time for our peace officers, our coast guard officials or even our military people to be on board a foreign vessel. It is also not clear in the act whether that is 72 hour of business days. What happens on a weekend or a national holiday in the particular country?

My amendment of 48 hours simplifies it and makes it much more clear. It does not state whether it is over a weekend or on a business day. I think 48 hours is enough time to give any nation warning of what Canada plans to do when we suspect illegal fishing in our waters.

I am also glad to note that one of the amendments the parliamentary secretary will be bringing forth concerns stateless vessels. We are very concerned about what Spain, Iceland or any other nation has done when it comes into our waters, but what about those with flags of convenience or stateless vessels? I call them pirates. If I had my way I would not have missed the last time; I would have got them. Every time a foreign vessel comes into our water and takes away tonnes of our fish, they destroy the hopes, the lives and the aspirations of hardworking people in the country from coast to coast to coast.

It is sinful and it is a shame that we have become the laughing stock of the world when we sit back and ask what we can do now. These are Canadian resources and they should be controlled by Canadian management policies in agreement with other nations. I realize we just cannot arbitrarily do it when it comes to straddling stocks and stuff.

I will give the government credit. Effective today, it is starting to talk about it and starting to do it. The problem is that it took so long to get around to it. As I have already explained, I am here now and we will get this problem corrected.

I want to say something to the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans from all parties. I keep saying it is the best committee in the House because we try to work as co-operatively as possible. The member from the Gaspé area is a very constructive member of our committee, along with his colleague who also helped with drafting the amendments. They are very good amendments. We will be reviewing them and deciding in the future whether or not we will be supporting them. In essence, from what we have read up to now, we should have no problem supporting the majority of his amendments.

I look forward to a great Newfoundlander speaking about the problems of the fisheries. It should be a very interesting debate. Hopefully we can all learn something from this wonderful individual.

[International Trade, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 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 these important products and protect B.C. forestry jobs?

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

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 7 with the following:

“(a) has not responded within forty-eight hours after a notification was given to the state under subsection (2); or”

[Transit Passes, March 24th, 1999]

Exactly. It is an individual decision. We know that the hon. member has an awful lot of influence with the leader and many other members of his party even though he sits on the backbench like me.

I wish to concur with the member. This an honourable and very good motion. It would do an awful lot of good for this country. It is one that should get the unanimous consent of everybody in this House.

[Transit Passes, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of my most hon. colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys who has introduced this motion.

I should say for the benefit of all those listening that when this member, with close to 20 years of parliamentary experience, brings forward a motion, we can guarantee that it is a good one and well thought out. With minimum debate we should support it because he is such a great member. In fact, this member is so highly respected in the House that I expect to see a statue of him when he retires so I can come by and remember him every day.

We are discussing Motion No. 360 which would make employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit. This is probably one of those motions in the history of the House of Commons where it is a win win win situation for absolutely everyone.

Millions of Canadian children every day go to school on a bus and return home on a bus. However, when these kids get older, what do we teach them? To drive a car. They forget about transit services and the fact that they have been riding a bus for the last 10 or 12 years. Now they are going to drive a car. It is absolutely insane that they stop using the bus once they finish their schooling.

By the year 2000, 80% of the Canadian population will live in urban areas with access to public transportation. Our trade minister said this in Ottawa in 1997. By increasing public transit use, all transit users will benefit: lower income families, women, students and the elderly. By increasing transit revenues and service, all taxpayers benefit from health care savings, infrastructure cost savings, and so on. Very few tax policies impact so favourably on so many people.

The other day in Nova Scotia the gas companies, in their relentless attack of greed on the people of Nova Scotia, raised the price of gasoline by 6 cents a litre. It is absolutely abominable that these corporations can get away with that.

I always say that the best way to get back at these corporations is to use the transit services. More people would love to ride the buses, but unfortunately in many areas, as my hon. colleague from the Reform Party has pointed out, there is no access to transit services.

Many employers would love to give this benefit to their employees. One of the reasons they would love to do that is that it makes a happier employee. They do not have to worry about getting into their car in the morning. They do not have to worry about finding a parking space. The employees would save a tremendous amount of wear and tear on their vehicles.

We would also, as a community of communities, save a tremendous amount and actually get to fulfill a promise now and then. This government could actually fulfill a promise, many of which it has broken. It could meet its commitments to the Kyoto agreement. It would be an absolutely wonderful thing for our environment.

When building new infrastructure in cities we would not have to build massive parking lots, which are always ugly. I do not think I have ever seen an attractive parking lot. I have been through a good part of this country and I have not seen one yet.

We have been getting a lot of occurrences of road rage. In areas like Vancouver, for example, every hour is rush hour. As my colleague from the Reform Party said, from here to the airport, 95% of the vehicles have just one driver. They then put in an exit sign to Red Hill Road or whatever it is and there are huge lineups. I have even missed a plane because of it. It is insane. There should be rapid massive transit in this country, especially in areas like this, but of a more frequent nature. That would benefit all of us.

It would also be a drastic decrease in our dependence on fossil fuels. We would not have to destroy the planet. Maybe we could actually leave something for our great-grandchildren. They would know that we did not have to burn every fossil fuel just so we could make it easy for ourselves to get from point A to point B. It would also bring a lot more safety to our streets.

Unfortunately, in Halifax, for example, there is an increase in incidents of people being hit at crosswalks. I noticed it here when walking from the hotel to Parliament Hill. A lot of people just narrowly miss getting hit because people in their vehicles are in a rush to get somewhere. I watch people get off the buses and they are happy and generally more easygoing because life has been good. They sat down and read a book or spoke to their colleagues in the morning. They are much happier employees. I believe most employers would honour this type of motion.

I should put in a plug now for all the transit workers in this country who wholeheartedly agree with the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys that this is an excellent motion. It would create employment in the transit field. It would create employment for their long term security. It would also help out our elderly, those who are disadvantaged and many of our students who cannot afford to get from one area to another, who could then spend the money they have on more important things like their books or tuition. Maybe they could even go and have a glass of beer now and then. Who knows what students do these days? We would have to ask the pages.

If this motion is passed this House will have shown a terrific responsibility toward the future of this country and toward all citizens by showing leadership, the leadership that the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has just displayed by bringing forward this motion.

I am very happy to hear that our colleagues in the Reform Party will be supporting it. I understand that our colleagues from across the House may be supporting this motion as well.

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today it was announced that 20% of Bell has been purchased by the Americans. The other day we lost the Canadarm from Spar to the Americans. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona indicated in a question a couple of days ago that almost $63 billion of what used to be Canadian is now gone.

Would the member not agree that if foreign banks are allowed into this country, with the power and the size they have, they would eventually not only gobble up our own financial institutions, but also would intrude into areas of auto leasing and insurance? Would he not think that would not be a good thing for Canadians?

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the merits or the pros and cons of whether we should allow foreign banking. However, if foreign banks were allowed in and allowed to compete, as he and his party wish, would he not agree or take under advisement the private member's bill of my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle which would force banks to have more community investment, similar to the credit union movement, where they would have to reinvest so much of their profits in the community so that we could have regional development, especially in the rural areas? I know that he comes from a rural area. Would he not agree that would be one hell of an idea and would he not agree that his party should support that initiative?

[Shipbuilding Industry, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991-92 the current Prime Minister and the current industry minister were in opposition chastising the then Conservative government over the lack of an industrial strategy for a shipbuilding policy. After six years in government, the industry minister has failed on all counts to deliver an industrial strategy for a shipbuilding policy. What is worse, he absolutely refuses to meet with the marine workers federation and other interested groups to develop a strategy.

Will the Minister of Industry commit today to meet with the marine workers federation to sit down and discuss their concerns over the future of shipbuilding?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As always, I want to thank the Liberal Party for the standing ovation every time I get up to speak. I do wish to remind the member for Vancouver Quadra that he was the one who voted against his own members—

[Division No. 354, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise today actually in disappointment as this is the 50th time in the Liberals' reign that they have invoked closure. We talk about a democracy in this country. It is actually a capitulated democracy.

I preface my remarks around something that farmers would understand. Bill C-76 is legislation that looks like it came out of the south end of a northbound cow. It is absolutely disgusting that this 530 page piece of trash is not even properly done. It ignores Nunavut. It ignores other aspects. The French and English translation of this bill is not even proper and there are many other errors in it, but unfortunately we will not have the opportunity to go through it word for word because the government is ramming it down our throats and the throats of the Canadian people.

A news release by Treasury Board states “The government wishes to impose a collective agreement”. I know that when the government changed unemployment insurance to employment insurance it had a new thesaurus. It changed the English language. Now it is changing it to imposing a collective agreement. For those listening, for those in the House today and for the 300 PSAC workers outside the House of Commons right now in protest who will be joined by thousands of others across the country, we cannot impose a collective agreement.

The word collective means together, labour and management come together with their own imperatives of what they would like to see for the next two or three years, the length of the collective agreement, and then they agree.

In all my years of labour negotiations when they cannot agree, that is when they get a third party, either a conciliator or an arbitrator. That person's ruling would be binding on both parties for the length of the collective agreement.

The government does not even want to go that route. It wants to impose a collective agreement. I have never heard that in my life. I have only been on this planet for 43 years. It wants to impose a collective agreement. That is absolutely ridiculous.

While we are talking about the Liberal government, last night in the late show I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board a question on regional rates of pay. This is his response, as reported in Hansard , on ending regional rates of pay:

That would make it inequitable for many people in the process. It would mean excessive income for some in certain areas [of the country].

Can we imagine it being excessive when a person making $11 an hour now has his or her salary bumped over a three to four year period to $15 an hour? I do not know a place in the country where $15 an hour would be considered excessive. That is right from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

It is absolutely unbelievable that the President of the Treasury Board said in the House that members of parliament were paid differently depending on where they lived. That is absolutely not true. Some ministers may get an extra stipend, but the basic rate of pay for parliamentarians is exactly the same no matter where they live in the country. Whether we live in my beautiful riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley, in Malpeque, P.E.I. or in Vancouver we get paid the same. That is a basic fact.

The truth is that 97% of all people attached to the public service receive the same base pay. Guess what? Only the lowest paid in the country do not, which is what we on this side of the House find so offensive.

Here is another statement from Hansard during last night's late show. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said:

If the government were to pay Vancouver rates to blue collar workers in Halifax, imagine the outcry.

These are the crocodile tears we get. He continued:

Small business would be competing for needed workers, not just the federal government but the corporations rich enough to match the higher rates. That would disrupt the local labour market.

We have letters from the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, and the Progressive Conservatives of Nova Scotia. Not one business person has ever called me up and said that the government was right. What they are saying is that the government is absolutely wrong. Imagine anyone saying that. It is unbelievable. I could go on with what he said, but I would be so upset I would want to go over there and scream in their faces.

This morning I had a wonderful breakfast with some doctors and some legislators to discuss tomorrow, World Tuberculosis Day or World TB Day. There is another epidemic, a plague going across the country, the plague of arrogance coming from Treasury Board. It is absolutely unbelievable that the arrogance coming from the minister and the parliamentary secretary goes right through the entire backbenches. I have great respect for some backbenchers. I can actually call them friends. However, the arrogance being displayed to backbenchers which is coming forth on the picket lines is unbelievable.

I cannot believe that in 1991 the Liberals sat shoulder to shoulder with PSAC workers. We have the evidence. We spoke to the workers. The Liberal members who were fighting in opposition at that time against the Mulroney Conservatives were telling PSAC workers to elect them in the next federal election and they would end regional rates of pay.

It is now 1999 and guess what? They misled them on that one. They will break their promise just as they did on GST, day care and free trade. It goes on and on. It was just a power grab and they misled some very wonderful people. I am absolutely disgusted.

I will now deal for a moment with members of the Reform Party. They are discussing the issues. Some of them have spoken very well on behalf of people in their ridings. The member for Wetaskiwin said they believed in fair collective bargaining and that these workers were decent and honest people. He is absolutely correct, but I wish he would talk to his member for Saskatoon—Humboldt who called these same workers hooligans. That was an absolute disgrace.

I wish members of the Reform Party, especially the leader of the Reform Party, would take the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt by the scruff of the neck and stop him from abusing his parliamentary privileges by calling PSAC workers on strike hooligans, thugs and thieves. It is absolutely unbelievable that member would stand in the House and abuse his privileges in that way.

I reiterate that we cannot legislate a collective agreement. The Reform Party likes to call it a contract but it is not a contract. It is a collective agreement. It is a living, breathing document between two agreeable parties for the duration of the contract. It is unbelievable the government would ignore that and try to legislate them back.

We had this same discussion, deja vu I would call it, back in December 1997 when the government did the same to postal workers. As of today postal workers do not have a collective agreement. The government is still delaying and stalling its efforts for a proper agreement. Darrell Tingley of CUPW, Daryl Bean of PSAC and all those hardworking people who strive hard to maintain the morale of their membership are trying to say that they will deal with and talk with the government, but the government is not playing ball.

Speaking about ball, the government turned around and ignored the pay equity rulings from the courts. It said that it could not do that, that it would be unfair to give people, especially women, fair compensation for fair value of work. It will not do that. The pay equity issue was strike one.

Regional rates of pay is strike two. The government will ignore that because it is a pet personal project of the treasury board minister so that is the way it will be.

Strike three is exactly what is going on outside right now, the government's grab on the superannuation surplus of workers of the public service, those who are retired and those who are currently working. Where I come from three strikes in baseball and you are out. This is exactly what will happen to the government come the next federal election.

If the government is so sure of its legislation, if it is so sure of its policies and if it believes its polls, it should prorogue the House and call an election. I challenge the government to do that. It should go back to the people of Canada if it is so confident of this piece of legislation. I can assure the House that the Liberals will be in for quite a shock. We know they will not do that because they do not have the courage to do that.

I reiterate that the government is refusing to listen. It has absolutely forgotten to listen to people. I do not think it really knows how.

We should all try to help government members. I will try to help them get re-elected, especially the member for Malpeque who is looking at me right now. I can assure him his re-election. All he has to do is rip up Bill C-76, throw it away, recycle it. I do not know if any recycler would ever want to take it because it is so contaminated with such useless language. He can rip it up and tell the treasury board minister, with whom I am sure he has close contact, to go back to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith. That would do it.

That is common sense. It is called conversation. It is called talking. It is called dealing fairly or dealing equitably or equity. There is that word again which the government does not understand. It has its new dictionary, its new thesaurus and its spin doctors. It will turn around tomorrow and ram the bill through the Senate. As my colleague from Portage—Lisgar said, the only people supporting the government now are members of the Senate. If it cannot be reformed, eventually I hope we will abolish that other place. That is for another time and another story.

It is incredible that the government can ignore the hopes, aspirations and dreams especially of those in Atlantic Canada. There are two people working for PSAC literally 24 hours a day on behalf of their membership and on behalf of their communities, Mr. Howie West and Ms. Cathy Murphy. They have done yeoman's work in trying to get the information out to the membership on exactly what all this means.

Nova Scotians will not stand for it any more. They did not stand for it in the last election when they elected six NDPers and five Conservatives. If the government is thinking of trying to get re-elected, that is not how to do it.

I hope the member for Malpeque is listening because I am trying to teach him and show him how he can get re-elected if he desires that. The member for Portage—Lisgar is correct. These people will not forget. This is the straw that broke the camel's back, more or less. The Liberals just cannot keep this arrogant way of governing. They cannot do that any more.

The last time I checked we lived in a democracy. My father and mother were rescued by the Canadians in 1945 during the liberation of southern Holland. My father always said “If they have a military like that, can you imagine what kind of country they have?” I was a young child in 1956 when we came to this country because of the democratic beliefs of Canadians. When I spoke with my father the other day he said that he could not believe the government that in the sixties had some very good progressive and co-operative ideas had completely abandoned them.

It will legislate the lowest of the lowest workers in terms of salary back to work. If government members think that moving the picket line from outside to inside the workplace will make everyone happy, they are sadly mistaken. In the long run it will cost the Canadian taxpayer a whole lot more money.

It is unbelievable that the government would stall and delay and then all of a sudden use the hammer of legislation to get them back to work. It will not work. These people will not abide by the legislation. They will go back to the office because they are law-abiding people, but let us imagine what will happen to the morale of those people. It is unbelievable. When will the next time be? We did it with the postal workers. Now we are doing it with the PSAC workers. Who is next? I wish the government would tell us who is next.

When the Bronfmanns sent $2 billion out of the country a couple of years ago without paying any money to the federal government, did the government have an emergency debate? Did the government bring in legislation to order them to pay that money back to the Canadian coffers? No, it did not. It just said “Oops, it is the Bronfmanns. We cannot say anything. We will not say anything because they are big donators to our party. We will just ignore that and let it slide”.

Employees earning $11 and $12 an hour are exercising their democratic right to strike and the government legislates them back to work. The government's argument is that it is costing the Canadian economy money. If that is true, why did it not legislate the Bronfmanns to pay back the money they owed the Canadian government and the Canadian people?

Another example occurred a few years ago. The Irving Corporation decided to move its mobile home manufacturing plant from New Brunswick to Nova Scotia. In fact it went to the town of Debert and asked for applications from people to join the company. Irving told the people of New Brunswick that if they did not abide by its standards, rules and a reduction of pay they would lose their jobs.

Did the government step in and say “You cannot do that. You cannot threaten the livelihood of communities in New Brunswick?” Absolutely not. It stood by and let the market decide. It let the corporation decide what was best for business. However, what happens when ordinary working people exercise their basic rights? The government turns around and says that they cannot have them. There cannot not be too much democracy in the country.

The government is one sided when it comes to negotiations of any kind. It does not know how to negotiate. It negotiated a terrible NAFTA deal. It negotiated bad environmental laws. Now it cannot even negotiate with the lowest paid workers, its own employees. That is an absolute disgrace.

I have been in the House for about two years. Like my colleague from Winnipeg said, we did not come to the House to vote away the rights of workers. We did not come to the House to have high taxes placed on small businesses and families. We did not come to the House to destroy the hopes and aspirations of people infected with hepatitis C. We did not come to the House to make all those people live in misery.

We came to the House to make it better for people. We came to the House, especially me, to work with other opposition members and to work with the government to come up with solutions that would benefit all of us in the long term no matter where we lived in the country.

I have had the opportunity to live in Vancouver, Yukon and now in beautiful Nova Scotia. I have an understanding of what Canadians think and what they say. The anger that people across the country are starting to feel toward the government is incredible. The government will stand up and say it had to been done for farmers, for this and for that. It is all hyperbole. If it really wanted to negotiate in fairness, it would rip up Bill C-76 and go back to the bargaining table. It will not do that because it has an agenda that does meet the needs of all Canadians.

If government members think for one second that they can move the picket line from outside to inside the workplace they are sadly mistaken. The arrogance of the President of the Treasury Board must stop. Otherwise there will be chaos and a lot of trouble out there in the very near future.

Many PSAC workers and their families in communities across the country have contacted our party and me saying we have to do something to get the government to listen to them. I have heard members from the Reform Party, members from the Bloc. I will be waiting for members of the Conservative Party to speak out as well. They are all speaking with the same voice. We cannot do this. We have to stop legislating collective agreements because it is impossible.

It is not a collective agreement anymore. It is a legislative term. It is certainly not agreeable. It is not agreeable to us or the other opposition members and it is certainly not agreeable to the workers. This is a slim majority of Liberals, who have only 38% of the popular vote, legislating their agenda.

Daily we listen to the rhetoric of the Liberals. We listen to the changes. They go with the flow. They change every day. There is no question they have a one sided agenda. Their corporate friends, their very powerful friends, have no problems. They will do whatever they want with legislation and whatever concerns they have.

The government ignores the working people in this country, their families and their communities. It will divide and conquer. Farmers will be put against workers, coal miners against other people. Destroy them all. That is completely unacceptable.

I thank members for the opportunity to speak on behalf of all PSAC workers, their families and their communities across the country.