Peter Stoffer

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct that the Conservatives inherited quite a mess from the previous government when it comes to this particular aspect of DFO.

There are many ways in which we can divert funds in order to put them into that program. My personal beef is the gun registry, for one. We could save some money there. That money has been spent a hundred times over for other departments.

The reality is that the government just claimed a $12 billion surplus. It is not that difficult for it to work with the communities across this country to prioritize the wharves that are in desperate shape now and that need assistance now because, as my colleague from the Bloc said, some of them are past the point of no return. The government can prioritize, work with the communities, and get the funding to them as quickly as possible.

It would be nice to see the government take the same approach to fishermen as it recently did with Bill C-15 which was just passed unanimously in this House. The agricultural critics worked with the Minister of Agriculture to get that funding right away. If the government could take that same approach with fishermen, in terms of their harbours and wharves, that would be a great day in this House.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

I want to thank the hon. member for Cardigan, who is on the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans, for bringing forward this motion today. I also want to remind the member for Cardigan and the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's in a very respectful way, because I highly respect them both, that on their previous discussion about who introduced what first when it came to the capital gains exemption for fishermen, that it was the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans that unanimously made the recommendation for fishermen and their families.

I am proud to see that some of those people who were actually part of that committee at that time and offered their unanimous support for the recommendation are here today. Unfortunately, the previous government failed to move on it. I am proud to see that the current government is moving on it in a way that is acceptable to most of the fishermen.

Regarding the situation with the wharves, I would remind everyone that wharves and harbours are just as essential to fishermen on the coast as grain elevators and railroad tracks are to farmers in the Prairies. As we know, when the government cancelled the crow rate, started knocking down grain elevators, and let the roads deteriorate, farm families left the farms and they were corporatized. Now the bigger corporations are taking over.

What is happening on the east and west coasts and in some parts of central Canada is that the wharves are deteriorating, the fish stocks are being corporatized, and fishermen are leaving their livelihoods. In fact, there used to be 17 wharves in my riding at one time. Now I am down to 2 because of redistribution.

When we look at the movement of people out of rural Canada into the major areas, a lot of them are from the farming, forestry, mining and fishing communities. These harbours are very essential to the livelihood of many rural Canadians on all three coasts.

I want to state that Nunavut now is working with the government, DFO and other departments, like transport, in order to achieve some wharf ability in Nunavut to exploit its fisheries, so that it can land product there and not have to do it offshore. That is going to be quite an expense. I would encourage the government of the day along with the department handling it to work with the government of Nunavut and the environment, and everything else in order to ascertain the best place for these new wharves, so that the people in Nunavut can have economic activity from their natural resources.

The wharves, especially in my area of Atlantic Canada, are essential to these people. I really did not like the idea of the divestiture program because in many ways it downloaded into these mostly volunteer groups who, in turn, had to charge fees to the fishermen. Of course, they never had the money to upgrade and fix these harbours and facilities once and for all.

Another thing missing from this debate is dredging. Many of these harbours require dredging and that is a very expensive proposition. My hon. colleague from the Bloc is absolutely correct. We are standing here talking about $20 million that we do not want to see cut and the member for Cardigan asked for an additional $15 million, but in all honesty when we look at wharves right across this country, including central Canada, we are looking at probably upward of $400 million to $600 million. That is not even including what is possible for Nunavut.

We need a major investment into these wharves and harbours, so that fishermen and their communities can earn their livelihoods, just like we do in central Canada when we drive down the road. We need a nice, paved road that is safe and secure so we can get to our jobs. Fishermen and their communities need the wharves and docks to be in proper shape so that they, in turn, can do their jobs.

Fishing is probably one of the most dangerous occupations in this country. As my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's knows, the papers the other day reported another couple of fishermen being rescued. It is an amazing thing that these men and women who ply our seas in order to harvest the food that we in turn are able to appreciate risk their lives every day when they leave the wharves. It would be a nice thing for them to know that they have the support of all parliamentarians and that we take their issues seriously.

I have been on the committee since 1997 and I must say that it is one of the best committees of the House. It has worked with various chair people. The current chairperson from South Shore—St. Margaret's is doing a fine job so far in his early tenure as the chair of our committee, the vice-chairs are as well, and the PS from British Columbia is not a bad fellow indeed.

We must encourage these men. I want to say this because we want to encourage them when they go to cabinet and ask for the money that is required. I want them to know that they have the support of the NDP, and I am sure the Bloc and the Liberals, in order to do that. However, they are going to have to have that political sword to get that funding that our wharves and harbours need right across this country.

We want to let them know that if they are to pursue that angle, they will have our support. If, unfortunately, they are not able to do that, then of course we would have to use whatever political pressure we can in order to ensure that we get it into the government's head that those harbours and wharves are just as important as rail beds, airports and roadways are to the general populace in the rest of the Canada. It is extremely vital that we do this.

This is why I am quite proud to see that the motion was brought forward today. I am glad to see that the parliamentary secretary of fisheries and oceans has said the Conservatives support the motion. But that is only $20 million. That is not nearly enough.

We do not want to see any more cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in this regard. We want to see greater enhancements to the department. We want greater accountability for the department. We want the Auditor General to go through that department with a fine-toothed comb, to be completely honest. We need to have more investment when it comes to small crafts harbours in this country because they are so vital to the economy of those areas.

If we are going to build on the extremities of Canada, the west coast, parts of central Canada, the east, and improve the situation in the north, the government and the Prime Minister must take a firm stand and say they will not abandon them. They must not cut this department. They must enhance the resources that are required so that the communities we hail from, Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, will know that they can enjoy their livelihoods, and a very risky one at that.

They in turn will know that their government and all opposition members, for example, support what they do and are proud of what they do. It will enable them to do their job as best as they can, so that they will have quality wharves. It will ensure that there are no additional fees tacked onto them, the dredging is done properly, and that there is proper monitoring on those wharves to ensure that when they start to deteriorate, as the member for Cardigan said, we will reinvest these wharves all the time to keep them going. If we did that then maybe, just maybe, we would not have such a depopulation of rural Canada as we see today.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, in committee the other day people from DFO told us that these harbour authorities had the ability to raise the fees they charge to the users of these wharves. Of course that is just another form of downloading.

We had indicated to the officials at that time that any more fees toward fishermen would have another devastating effect.

I wonder if the member would concur with the statement that when these HAs, as they are called, tack on more fees to the users of these wharves it compounds the problem to an even greater extent.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Yukon on a couple of examples that happened in my riding where my constituents believe the justice system fell apart.

A few years ago an individual in my riding, who was on his ninth impaired driving charge, drove down the highway and killed an 18 year old girl. At that time he received the maximum of eight years. He served two years and two months and then was off on parole, first a half-way house and then parole. This sentence thoroughly upset the community.

Now I understand that every case needs be taken on its individual merits, that everything cannot be blanket covered and that there are circumstances before each court room. However, my belief is that the justice system failed the family. It fails society when a person can have nine impaired charges and on the ninth one kill a young girl and take away her entire future. It casts a shadow or pall against the family for the rest of their lives.

How does the member believe we should be correcting the justice system to prevent this type of activity in the future?

[Business Development Bank of Canada Act, May 18th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Business Development Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Student Loans Act (student loan system).

Mr. Speaker, a lot of students are on the cusp and cannot access student loans because, according to the rules and regulations, their parents make $1 too much over the minimum in order to achieve this.

All students in this country have the right of access to university, post-secondary education and vocational training. We should not restrict access to student loans and opportunities for students to upgrade their skills in order to assist us in the future economies.

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

[Overseas Military Memorial Sites Student Visits Assistance Act, May 18th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-308, An Act to propose and examine a program giving financial assistance to high school students visiting overseas military memorial sites.

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we have about three World War I veterans left and we lose about 75 to 80 World War II and Korean veterans every day in this country. Fairly soon, the history of those two battles and the Korean War will be lost due to old age.

What I am attempting to do in the bill is have the federal government work with the provinces, the school boards and the private sector to set up a fund that would enable students the one-time opportunity to travel to overseas gravesites so they themselves can stand on the sites to witness and understand the historical nature of what they mean.

I can assure the House that any of us who have had that opportunity have been extremely moved by that experience.

In order to keep the remembrance of that service alive and of the words “lest we forget” alive, we need to keep passing it on from generation to generation. I believe this fund would be well worth it in the end because it would teach our children and future generations the history of our brave men and women in our military.

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

[National Defence, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, why would the government hide behind lawyers?

The reality is the Prime Minister himself said to stand up for our Canadian troops. Yet the government is prepared to sit down when it comes to their families.

I ask the Prime Minister personally, will he stare into the camera and tell Mrs. Wheeler and her family that not the lawyers but he himself will meet with her to finally address this wrong once and for all?

[National Defence, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 Master Corporal Wheeler died in a training accident in Alberta.

For 14 years his wife Christina and her family have been working to clear his name and seek compensation for the pain and suffering the family has gone through. In fact the former ombudsman, Mr. Marin, said very clearly there is the basis of a cover-up and bias within DND in the investigation of this case.

Will the government now speak with Mrs. Wheeler personally and seek to redress, in compensation form, the pain and suffering that she and her family have gone through after the loss of her brave husband?

[Jack Harris, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House of Commons one of Newfoundland and Labrador's greatest citizens, Mr. Jack Harris.

Mr. Jack Harris will be retiring as leader of the NDP of Newfoundland and Labrador at the end of this month. Mr. Harris has put in 16 years as a member of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. For every single one of those years he has stood up for fishermen, for farmers, for foresters, for loggers, for shipbuilders and for anybody else. If people were in trouble, they would go to Jack Harris and his staff for the assistance that they required.

At this time, on behalf of the federal NDP, we thank his wife of many years, Ann Martin, and their three children, Amelia, Sarah and John, and the people of Signal Hill--Quidi Vidi for the proper way they voted for so many years and for giving us the opportunity to have a former member of Parliament of this House, a long term member of the House of Assembly, a great Canadian and a fantastic Newfoundland and Labradorian. We congratulate Jack and wish him all the best.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was right on one thing. The Liberals were in power for 13 years and the environmental mess left behind was even greater than when they started. There is no question about that.

I would like to give a bit of a history lesson here. When those members were in opposition for all those years, how many proactive questions did they ask on the environment? They probably asked less questions than the number of fingers on one hand.

That party said, “global warming is a myth”. It said that it was not true. For years the Conservatives did not support supply management for farmers. Now they say they support it. Now they say global warming is a problem.

If my colleague truly believes in cooperation among parliamentarians, does he not believe that Canada cannot address environmental issues independently of itself, that it needs to work in a global atmosphere with all countries in the world, not just China and the U.S.? Kyoto is not perfect. We in the NDP and others would like to see even stronger elements within Kyoto to make real targets and to meet them. When 100 countries can agree on at least something, that in itself is a good basis for a start. Would he not at least agree with that?

One of the first acts of the minister was to say, very clearly, that the Conservatives had a plan when they were in opposition. However, the budget comes out and they allocate all this money for the environment without a plan. How can they say that when they were in opposition, they had a plan, then budget funds without plan? The member says they are working on it, but that is not good enough.