Peter Stoffer

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. opposition leader that on June 28, 2005, a widow of a veteran from St. Peters, Cape Breton, named Joyce Carter, was given a written letter by the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, saying, on the veterans independence program, that if the Conservatives formed government, they would immediately extend the VIP to all widows and veterans regardless of time of death or application.

It is now 16 months later and that woman has written back to the Prime Minister, asking why he, and it starts with an l ends with d and two vowels in between, and I cannot say what she said in parliamentary language, but the reality is if the Prime Minister of the day can break a written promise to a widow of a veteran, then surely misleading an entire region and two provinces is just one rung further up the ladder of deception.

I would just like the opposition leader to clarify the fact that if the Conservatives could break their word to a widow of a veteran, then what is the big deal about breaking their promise to a province?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Labrador for his speech this morning on what is really the betrayal by the Conservative Party and the Government of Canada of the region that the member represents and also the region that I represent in Nova Scotia.

I want to give the member a chance to comment. Today in newspaper editorials and letters to the editor and on the talk shows in Atlantic Canada, people are ripping to shreds the Conservative Party and the integrity of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I remember a particular individual who also was betrayed. His name is David Orchard. He said that the Conservative Party was “conceived in deception and born in betrayal”. Does the hon. member for Labrador agree with that statement?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 6th, 2007]

With regard to the proposed move of the Coast Guard icebreakers Terry Fox and Louis St. Laurent: (a) what are the benefits identified by the government for this move; (b) what will be the cost of this move; (c) when will these moves take place; (d) where will the icebreakers be moved to; (e) what consultations have taken place with (i) the public, (ii) the employees, (iii) other government departments, (iv) the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on this proposed move; (f) what provisions and benefits have been proposed for employees who will make this move; and (g) what limitations or benefits will this move place on Coast Guard operations and exercises?

[The Budget, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Mickey Mouse gang over there betrayed the good people of Saskatchewan. They deliberately misled the good people of Nova Scotia.

The finest people in the country come from Newfoundland and Labrador. For those people over there to betray the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is incredible.

One brave Conservative from Nova Scotia stood up for his people and showed all of us what it is like to represent our constituents.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Crosbie has said that you are not telling the truth. Danny Williams has said that you are not telling the truth. Who is telling the truth over there and will they stand up for the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Danny Malanchuk, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness at the loss of a very good friend and a friend to all of us in Parliament, Mr. Danny Malanchuk. He was a trusted friend, a true member of CBC News and a talented journalist.

Danny was born in Montreal, was married to Lorna and has a son, Andrew. Danny joined CBC News in 1980 as a writer/broadcaster on regional TV programs produced in Ottawa. He was also one of the true original founders of Newsworld in 1989, working on political programs created for the network in New York.

Danny was known by many of us in the House of Commons as a genuine, kind and caring individual who loved the game of pool and loved chasing little white balls around a golf course.

In commemoration of Danny's favourite word, “feckless”, notes of condolences can be sent to www.feckless.ca.

At this time I would like to acknowledge his wife and his son and tell them that her husband and his father was a very kind man and will be sadly missed by all of us in the NDP and all of us in the House of Commons. May God bless his memory.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we go by the actions of the government. The commercial fisherman from Delta—Richmond East was disbanded, off with his head more or less, from the fisheries committee because of his objection to the Fisheries Act. If the Conservative government thinks the bill is so good, why would it remove from the committee someone from its own party who knows about the fishery?

John Duncan, the special adviser to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the west coast, was also told that he had no part in the new bill. Why would he have been ignored if this was such an important piece of legislation?

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I answered the question for the parliamentary secretary before but I will give the answer to the hon. member for Labrador who spoke so eloquently on his heritage and his people's heritage in the beautiful part of Labrador and attached to Newfoundland regarding the aspect of the fisheries and what it has meant to the survival of his people for over thousands of years.

When we asked about consultation on the bill, we know there was none, as we have proven already in the House. We have asked the parliamentary secretary to table the documents in the House but so far the government has refused to do it.

However, we do have indications here. I will take the province of British Columbia. There is a gentleman by the name Byng Giraud who is the senior director of the Mining Association of British Columbia. The new bill has 253 different clauses with 107 pages, a lot of it written in legalese. It takes someone of very high academic standing quite a long time to go through the bill and to understand it.

This was tabled on December 13, 2006 in the afternoon here in Ottawa. On December 14 the B.C. Mining Association issued a press release saying that it was pleased with the new act.

How can these six reputable organizations, the B.C. Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the forest industry, the Mining Association, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the B.C. Agricultural Council, say that the bill is great after only 12 hours from the introduction of the bill? How did they have that analysis?

We find out that in August 2006 they made recommendations to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the environmental aspects of the bill. Now we find that of the 16 recommendations they made, close to 14 of them are in the bill.

It also turns out that Byng Giraud just happens to be on the National Council of the Conservative Party for British Columbia. The government would not talk to fishermen in his riding. It would not talk to the fishermen in British Columbia or Nova Scotia. It would not talk to the families, the people who are involved in the fishing industry.

I keep reminding the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, not the minister of mining.

My hon. colleague is absolutely correct when his colleague from Gander brought in the hoist amendment. We challenged Bill C-30. We took it to a committee and rewrote it and it is something we are proud of. The government is not. We ask the same for the fisheries bill. We ask that it be brought before the committee before second reading where fishermen and their families will be able to debate it. Let us write a new act that we can all be proud of and let us all move forward.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. We have heard from the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that there was active and extensive consultation on the proposed act prior to its tabling on December 13, 2006.

I have asked repeatedly for a list of the people with whom the government consulted on the act prior to its introduction on December 13. That list does not exist. I have asked a tremendous amount of fishing groups, many of them on the B.C. coast, if they were consulted on this proposed act prior to its introduction, and the answer was a resounding “no”. That includes environmental groups. If the government has that list, it should table it in this House of Commons.

My question is quite clear. Something that is as old as this act definitely needs modernization. In this corner, there is no argument on that. However, when we are dealing with the lives of fishermen and their families and first nations communities, does the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley not think that for once and for all it is these communities and these workers in the industry who should have the final say on what the Fisheries Act should say?

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador for his presentation.

We have asked throughout today's debate about the consultative process and who was consulted on this act before it was tabled. I find it very amusing and quite astonishing that this bill was tabled on December 13, 2006. This bill is over 200 pages long, with a lot of legalese in it, but on December 14 the B.C. mining industry put out a press release saying it welcomed the new act. I do not know how anyone could have given the act a thorough analysis, whether against it or for it, prior to actually reading it, but one day later the mining industry said that it supported the act.

It is interesting that the senior director of the Mining Association of British Columbia is a gentleman named Byng Giraud, who says, “We support the act”. Guess what? Byng Giraud also sits on the governing national council of the Conservative Party of Canada, representing British Columbia. It seems awfully close and very paternalistic that on December 14 the Mining Association of B.C. can say it supports the act without giving it a thorough analysis and the individual who says that is a member of the Conservative Party representing B.C.

It is obvious that fishermen were not consulted on this act, so I ask my hon. colleague, does he have any other evidence of people of this nature across the country who are not fishermen and who support the government's intention of really destroying the future livelihood of fishermen and their families in this country?

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was quite evident by the minister's comments that to bring an bill of this nature before fishermen and their families is simply not on. I simply could not believe that the Minister of Fisheries, who is responsible for the protection of fish and fish habitat, would not allow proper consultative input from fishermen prior to the tabling of a bill, or even after second reading.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked what he would like to see that could not be done after second reading. Allow me to give him a classic example.

First of all, the 1997 Supreme Court decision of Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada should be verbatim in the preamble.

As well, clause 37(1) of the bill states:

For any species of fish that is not managed by a province, the Minister may by order, with respect to any area that the order specifies and subject to any condition that the order specifies, allocate any combination of quantities or shares of the fish that may be fished among any groups or communities that the order specifies--

This means that if the bill goes through the way it is, the minister could designate fish to anybody he or she deemed likely. We would like to see something in the preamble of the bill to prevent that from happening. The parliamentary secretary can take note of this, bring it to the lawyers and see if we are right or wrong. We would like to see something of this nature stated, “Nothing in the act or the amendments made by the act shall be construed to require a reallocation or re-evaluation of individual quota shares, processor quota shares, cooperative programs or any other programs, including sector allocations”.

I would like to have the hon. member's comments on it, because we do not want to see fish transferred from one area to another on the whim of the minister.