Peter Stoffer

[Veterans Affairs, June 14th, 2005]

It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The government likes to hide information from everybody.

During the 1960s, under Conservative and Liberal governments, we found that agent orange was sprayed upon unsuspecting civilian and military personnel.

Now we hear that agent purple, a carcinogen three times more lethal, was also used against unsuspecting military and civilian workers.

My question for the Minister of National Defence is quite clear. Instead of having to file freedom of information requests, will you now release all the information you have on these two agents that have been--

[Shipbuilding Industry, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, 1.2 million Canadians are unemployed because of the government. One area where the government could improve the situation is in our shipbuilding industry.

The Prime Minister's own sons have Canada Steamship Lines which should be renamed China steamship lines. Two more ships are being built offshore because of the inaction of the government.

My question is quite simple. How many more jobs do we have to lose in the shipbuilding industry before the government and the minister finally get it?

[Petitions, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on behalf of the great people of Nova Scotia who petition us to build a better, fairer employment insurance system and to do so by making the legislative reforms as recommended by the House of Commons committee on February 15, 2005.

[Petitions, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to present a petition today on behalf of the great people of Vancouver Island who ask us to amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include IBI and ABA therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment and require that all provinces provide and fund this essential treatment for autism.

[Delegated Legislation, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to debate the concerns of Bill C-52. At the outset, we in the NDP Party will be supporting Bill C-52, getting it back to the SJC committee for further debate.

The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations has been at this since 1987. I remind my Conservative colleagues that from 1987 to 1993, they were the government and they failed to do anything about this. The Liberals have continued that failure.

One of the concerns of course expressed by people is the sudden rush to get this done. One thing that cannot be accepted is the failure of government to enact concerns addressed to it by a committee, especially a joint Senate-House and standing committee.

We should not be in the pickle we are in now. The Ontario minister of natural resources, David Ramsay, should not have had to write the following words when he wrote to the Minister of Fisheries:

Without this provision, Ontario would literally have its hands tied with respect to the enforcement of a commercial fishery. It is entirely likely that the revocation of subsection 36(2) would result in chaos in this sector and threaten the sustainability of our fisheries resources.

The annual sale of commercial fishery in Ontario is estimated to be anywhere from $40 million to $50 million.

The Government of Ontario, the fishermen of Ontario and especially the resource of Ontario should not be under this type of pressure. It is unacceptable. I encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House to take a bit of a break and move on this issue very quickly so fishermen in Ontario and across the country can get on with it.

It is important to note that the NDP takes credence to this important matter. The particular bill will not provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with any new powers. It will not change the way the fishery is administered or enforced in Canada.

We find this to be very important. When look at the enforcement of our fisheries regulations, to say that DFO is doing a good job in terms of enforcing the regulations across the country would be ludicrous. The reality is DFO does not do a good job of enforcing the regulations. To allow something with an unregulated fishery, as the minister has said, would put great strain on the resource and would allow rampant illegal fishing to go on with no scrutiny or enforcement. We simply cannot accept that.

As the vice-chair of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans, I find it rather incredible that the Conservative Party stands up and shows concern about enforcement, when report after report it has supported the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. It has screamed and yelled for more enforcement. We have said that we have to put more money and people on the ground, on the rivers, lakes and oceans and we have to enforce the Fisheries Act to protect the resource.

We have screamed and yelled for that since 1997, when I came to this place. Report after report, most of them unanimous, have screamed at four different fisheries ministers, “You have to get tougher actions on the water. You have to be stronger in enforcing the Fisheries Act”. Because of a technicality or whatever, they cannot now say that they no longer support that initiative. We find this amazing.

The ability to enforce the licence conditions is a key part of management. We agree DFO is not doing a good job of that now. However, we absolutely agree that we have to enforce the conditions of the licence set forth by the government when a commercial or aboriginal fisherman is allowed to fish under certain parameters. Our fish stocks are at an all time dangerous low in many cases. We need proper conservation measures for sustainability and economic opportunities in the future. What is most important is that the government do its job and enforce the regulations.

I could not help but notice that the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters have pleaded with parliamentarians, including myself and others, to quickly pass Bill C-52 so they can get on with the job of enjoying the opportunities in recreational and commercial fishery, not only in the province of Ontario but I am sure in many provinces across the country.

I am pleased that the Bloc Québécois, although accused many times of being just a separatist party, has paid very close attention to this matter and has agreed that it should go back to the committee for further study.

I agree with my hon. colleague when she indicated that the ministers of Ontario should appear before the committee as soon as possible in order to achieve this goal.

I impress upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and on future ministers again to not ignore various committees. That is why we are in this situation today. That is why the House had to open a little earlier today in order to debate this and get it through. Again, no one should have to face this pressure.

We effectively agree with Bill C-52. We know that it has to get back to the SJG for further consultation. As vice-chair of the committee, I would encourage my colleagues in the House of Commons on the fisheries committee to do what the minister has asked us to do, which is a complete review and study of the Fisheries Act. This is probably one of the few things on which I agree with him.

The act is almost 138 years old. It contains many flaws and many concerns. I agree with many of my colleagues on the committee who are very upset with the way DFO does its business. In fact, a lot of people say that the DFO is the department for oil, playing around with the acronym in that regard.

I agree that the next time the committee gets together, probably in the fall, it should review the entire act from top to bottom. That will be a very big job for the committee to do. I encourage my Conservative, Bloc and Liberal colleagues to support that. We in the NDP definitely support a complete review of the act, to overhaul it, to modernize it and to give it some teeth. I always say we should have a dentist appear before the committee so we can have more teeth in the legislation and to ensure that the government has the enforcement and financial capabilities to do its job.

We will support Bill C-52 going back to the committee. However, we want to remind the government that the NDP and I am sure others are not amused at the way business is done within DFO. We want to ensure that the regulatory acts are enforced. We want to ensure that when the government announces a particular plan or program, that there is teeth behind it, that there is resources and people power to enforce the regulations that we have.

If we do not protect the fish stocks and we do not enact the legislation that we have now to protect those stocks for future generations, it will be a very sad day in Canada indeed.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, my colleague talked about the Annapolis Valley. I like to think the best valley in Nova Scotia is the Musquodoboit Valley, but that is another point.

Before I start with him, I just want to reiterate some of the concerns I have with my Conservative colleagues on their conversion to the road to Damascus. Their current leader, between 1993 and 1997, voted for every cut to agriculture that was brought forward by the Liberals, supported by the Reform Party at that time and the current leader at that time. The former leader of the Saskatchewan Party, Elwin Hermanson, voted for every cut to agriculture that the Liberals presented, supported at that time by the Reform Party. They cut the Crow rate. The grain elevator reductions and everything the Liberals brought through for cuts in agriculture was supported by the Reform Party.

In fact we do not have to go far back. In 1997, in their platform book they advocated further cuts to the agriculture department of Canada. That was not the NDP. That was the Reform Party and the Conservatives of today.

When their senior trade critic was the president of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, he denounced, not in these words, but criticized supply management and did not want farmers to be protectionist. Now CAFTA is complaining that the Conservatives, like the Liberals, are too afraid of losing dairy votes to stand up to a strong market access position that promises to break down all trade barriers including Canadian high tariff protection for the dairy, poultry and egg industries. Are the Conservatives afraid of CAFTA or are they afraid of the National Farmers Union?

They now have the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands who said in this House that the Wheat Board was engaged in illegal and corrupt activities. The Wheat Board is a debatable thing. I understand the Conservatives have their view and we in the NDP have ours, but if a member of the Conservative Party is going to say that the Wheat Board is engaging in illegal and corrupt activities, that member should have the courage to stand outside beyond the curtain of immunity and say that outside in the lobby. Otherwise, it is a bunch of bunk, which is what we get from the Conservatives a lot of time.

They stand and complain that the $4.6 billion deal that the NDP made with the Liberal government did not have agriculture in it. I have represented many farms in Musquodoboit Valley. I grew up in western Canada, as the member may know, or he does not care to listen , but the fact is that farmers care about the environment, they care about educating their students and they care about homelessness.

We are going to work on agriculture. If they give us time that will be there as well. However the reality is that every morning when we have breakfast we should be thanking the farmers who get up and do the hard work that they do. We know that farming is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world today and for it not to be supported in any way, shape or form by any member of Parliament of any party is disrespectful and disgraceful.

The Liberal Party has been in government since 1993. A few years ago, when we had a farm lobby attend the NDP caucus, I spoke to a 12 year old boy outside of Prince Albert. I asked him if he would be a farmer and he said, “Absolutely not”. I asked him how many kids in his class of 23 students will take up agriculture as a livelihood. He said none. Why the hell would anyone get involved in that industry today? That is a shame.

We have lost thousands and thousands of farm families across the country, very similar, as the member from Digby knows quite well, to how many fishing families we have lost throughout the country. The agricultural and the fishing aspects of our rural parts of Canada are under severe attack and it is time the government, along with all members of Parliament from all parties, understand the serious nature that these people are in. They work every day to feed us and we should be doing everything in our power to be looking after them.

My only question to my hon. colleague from the great Annapolis Valley is this. Will he now tell the minister that if he is thinking about article XXVIII, that he should not think anymore, that he should stand and tell the farmers who are watching this debate that he will indeed invoke article XXVIII in order to say to the WTO and the rest of the world that Canada is serious about protecting the interests of its farmers and its families?

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member from the Winnipeg area to know that he has our full support in this initiative.

I do not want to be too critical but sometimes a party's voting record comes back to haunt it. In March 2003, I introduced Bill C-206, which would have allowed caregivers the opportunity to take time off work to care for their loved ones under a palliative situation.

The hon. member was absolutely correct when he said that the motion was a wise investment of tax dollars and would be a saving in the long run. Those are the exact words I used in my motion in terms of allowing people the opportunity to leave their place of employment, care for their dying loved ones, collect employment insurance and have their job protected at the same time. It is the exact same benefits that a person would receive from maternity benefits.

Unfortunately, the previous leader of the Alliance Party, the current leader of the Conservative Party and the finance critic for that party voted against my bill. We cannot have a national strategy unless we deal with the caregivers concerned who deal with those people under the serious concerns of rehabilitative or palliative care.

My bill has been reintroduced as Bill C-256 and has had first reading. It has almost the exact wording as what was voted against by some members of his previous party.

Would the member support a strategy that would allow people who care for dying relatives the opportunity to stay at home, collect employment insurance, have their job protected and provide their relatives who are under palliative care the options that they deserve, which is the desire to be surrounded by their loved ones, to be surrounded in the setting of their choice and, of course, to be free of pain?

I wonder if the member who spoke so eloquently to this motion, which we support, would rise up and mention that.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, not to get into a debate on this, but I have spoken to the Bloc Québécois. That party did give its consent.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent in the House to allow me to move the following friendly amendment to the motion we are now considering. The amendment reads, “That after the word 'provinces', the words 'territories and municipalities' be added”.

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the fact that the official opposition can bring forth any debate for a motion. After a week of being in my riding, an awful lot of people spoke to me about issues other than Gomery. They spoke to issues about the trouble seniors are having in this country, the difficulty farmers and forestry products people are having. They spoke about our fishery people, our people in the mining industry and about workers who are unable to write off their expenses for going across the country.

Although I have respect for what opposition members do and they are correct, the fact is that the Liberals will be judged on the Gomery inquiry eventually and people will have their day.

However, of all the issues facing Canadians, from farmers to students to seniors and to everyone else, I am wondering why members of that party thought that this was the most important issue to discuss, even though the inquiry is still ongoing, and all the other issues facing Canadians seem to fall by the wayside for now. I would like the hon. member to answer that question.