House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was farmers.

Last in Parliament September 2021, as Liberal MP for Malpeque (P.E.I.)

Won his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Division No. 118 March 25th, 1998

Madam Speaker, I will try to be very concise.

I am disappointed that the member is trying to allege favouritism because of one individual who works for the minister. The minister is very fortunate to have individuals within his ranks who have experience in the fishery. That is what we need in the fishery.

On the issue of Langara Island at the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands, disputes between the recreational sector and the commercial seiners and trawlers have been an issue since the mid 1980s. It began with the growth of the chinook recreational fishery in the area and more recently these gear conflicts intensified. There is competition for the fishing area by the various groups, particularly for the relatively sheltered spots. Seine fishers because of the use of beach tie-offs and the size of the net interfere with or displace the significantly smaller recreational vessels. Similarly, fishing patterns of trawlers also may conflict with recreational fishers.

I stress that the primary focus of the Langara Island issue is not about conservation. It is about the desire of the different sectors to fish in the same area and the inherent incompatibility of these gears to co-exist in that same area. A small area around Langara Island is closed to commercial salmon trawlers early in the season to slow the catch rate of the chinook salmon. This is intended to ensure trawlers have a longer season and to minimize gear conflicts. This area around Langara Island referred to as a chinook red line boundary is less than seven and a half miles—

The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy March 24th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, as I clearly said earlier, the minister will respond to the specifics of the recommendations in this report at a later date.

Again I have to spell out to the member that there are certain international obligations. If we kick out the foreign fleets we will lose the leverage to influence the decision to protect world fish stocks in a sustainable fashion. There are, in fact, thousands of workers who depend on the fish that are caught by those foreign fleets for processing jobs in Canada. We do not want to destroy those jobs.

The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy March 24th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the minister will respond to the specifics of the report in due time.

We have to abide by international obligations. If we were to kick the foreign fleets out tomorrow we would destroy thousands of jobs in Nova Scotia and I am certain the member does not want that. We have already been offering fish to Canadians first.

Fisheries March 24th, 1998

The member could not be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the report and read it, you will see a supplementary opinion and a number of members decided that rather than get into this witch hunting that you seem to be promoting we wanted to move forward—

Fisheries March 24th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the minister when he comes back to Ottawa will certainly be reviewing this report and responding at an appropriate time.

I can say one thing for certain. The minister is not going to get into finger pointing and witch-hunting. He will be wanting to develop things forward in a positive fashion for the future.

Fisheries March 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the minister has talked many times in the House about Canadianizing the fishery.

We on this side of the House recognize that we have many international obligations in terms of our discussions with foreign countries as well.

We are trying to move forward on an international basis. At the same time the minister has made it very clear that where possible, where fish are not surplus to our needs, we will Canadianize the fisheries.

Fisheries March 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, certainly the minister did not instruct his officials not to lay charges. The member should be congratulating us on the in depth analysis of those observer reports which show some irregularities but not necessarily violations of our regulations.

DFO has investigated all those irregularities and if in places the law had been broken they would have been charged, but they did not find the law had been broken.

Fisheries March 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly not get into the finger pointing and witch-hunting members opposite want to get into.

We on this side of the House want to be proactive in moving forward and building a system of trust that we can build on for the future so that we have a fishery of the future that communities and people can depend on.

The Budget March 10th, 1998

Madam Speaker, the hon. member started by saying that it was a relationship of physics. I was wondering where he was going in terms of his physics lesson in the beginning.

In terms of the three last points he made including the feed freight assistance program, yes, they were cut in the previous budgets, but the fact is that we paid funds to compensate producers. Now they have been able to build some additional industries because of the money we put into those areas including his home province of Quebec.

The dairy subsidy is one of the benefits, and he knows it, of the supply management system in Canada. When that subsidy was dropped over a period of time, farmers were still able to get a return on their cost of production plus a fair return on their labour investment. He should look at the number of dairy producers in his home province of Quebec that benefit from that kind of scheme.

In terms of his point on research, the fact is that with our matching initiatives we have been able to considerably increase the funding going into research.

If the member would have held meetings in his home province in terms of how much Canada as a nation was transferring to Quebec, he might have seen some better discussions in terms of those meetings.

The Budget March 10th, 1998

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora.

I am most pleased to participate in this debate on this budget. My seatmate, the member for Vancouver Quadra, in his response put it quite appropriately when he said and I quote “On the budget it is a defining moment in our history”. It is indeed a defining moment in our history.

After almost three decades of deficit financing that clearly handcuffed our ability to govern in the interests of communities, people and the nation as a whole, we now have a balanced budget and have greater flexibility in making decisions in the future.

I heard the remarks of the members for Vancouver Island North and West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast earlier. They talked about their concerns about dredging and some other concerns they had in fisheries and oceans. I would agree. There are concerns in that area. Now that we are in a position that we are able to balance the budget, I would hope that they would be onside in terms of spending in some of those areas instead of giving tax deductions to the wealthy.

Gaining this position has not been easy. The last four budgets from a personal point of view have not been easy, especially in the region where I come from, Atlantic Canada and in rural areas. In getting to the position of balancing the budget, rural Canadians have had to share a greater part of the burden than people in other areas.

Now we have accomplished our goal. We have a foundation which we can build on in the future. I have been accused of a lot of things. On this, I will clearly say that it is good to see a real Liberal budget again.

I quote from Giles Gherson of the Ottawa Citizen on February 25. He said:

How better to define Liberalism for the 1990s than closing the widening income gap between rich and poor by giving the country's poorest people not just a tax cut, but help to get the training needed for high-skilled, high-paying jobs of the new knowledge economy.

What he clearly says in that statement is the direction that we have gone in this budget. We have balanced the budget. We have targeted more to the low income people. It has been called an education budget in terms of looking at the future. It goes in a very different direction than members opposite seem to want to go with greater and greater tax relief for the wealthy instead of looking at all the people of this great country.

In the general sense, this budget is an education budget with its emphasis on youth, education and training and a lot of initiatives. I just want to list a few: financial assistance to students through the Canada millennium scholarship foundation and the Canada study grants; support for advanced research and graduate students through several granting councils; helping to manage student debt loads through tax relief for interest on student loans and improvements to the Canada student loans program; helping Canadians to upgrade their skills through tax free RRSP withdrawals for lifelong learning and tax relief for part time students; encouraging families to save for education through a Canada education savings grant; supporting youth employment through EI premium holiday for youth employment and youth at risk; and, connecting Canadians to information and knowledge through the SchoolNet and community access programs.

Those are measures targeted at the people of tomorrow, the people who are going to build this country into the future. That is the kind of forward-looking budget and forward-leaning government that this government on this side of the House is. Such measures show foresight and are indeed building for the future.

In my province of Prince Edward Island the increase in the cash floor of the CHST from $11 billion to $12.5 billion is extremely important. I know others have argued that it is not enough. It is never enough, but the fact that we are increasing the cash portion of the transfer means a lot more to Prince Edward Island than to some of the other provinces. Because of our smaller population base, just transferring tax points to Prince Edward Island as we have traditionally done would not be as important to us as is the transferring of the cash itself. That is extremely important to the health care issue in the province of Prince Edward Island.

One member opposite said there was no tax relief in this budget. He is clearly wrong. I believe there is $7 billion of tax relief over the next three years to those who need it most. That is the difference between Liberals and Reformers. We are targeting it to those people who need it the most, not those who need it the least.

The number of taxpayers in Prince Edward Island who are going to benefit from tax relief will be about 70,000 people; that is 97.2% of taxpayers in Prince Edward Island who will benefit from the tax relief measures outlined in this budget. That is good news.

I should make some other points on tax relief in part because of members opposite who are trying to leave the illusion that there is no tax relief. There is an additional $850 million to the child tax benefit program. The child care expense deduction will go from $5,000 to $7,000 for children under the age of seven. There is the new caregiver credit. There is the Canadian opportunities strategy. I do not want to take a lot of time on this but the list goes on and on.

What about rural areas? I do not mind putting on the record that I still have a grave concern about cost recovery and where it is going to lead in the long term. I would hope that in future budgets and in future government initiatives that we can move to reduce the cost recovery measures. I am concerned that cost recovery over the long term can kill the very economy that we are depending on for growth with the cost recovery fees, in particular in agriculture and fisheries.

I put out a caution that I would have liked to have seen more done in this budget, especially in the area of cost recovery.

In terms of the budget working for rural Canada, we ought to recognize that many of Canada's most important industries, such as agriculture, energy, mining, forestry and fishing, are based in the rural communities.

These primary industries account for almost half of Canada's exports. Canada's improved financial situation helps to keep interest rates low, encouraging small businesses, farmers, fishermen and others to invest in rural areas. That is one thing that certainly a balanced budget will help us with.

The group that will benefit most from the 1998 budget initiative to allow self-employed Canadians to deduct the cost of health and dental insurance premiums is rural Canada. That is a very important initiative, especially for the farming community.

The 1998 budget confirms the four year, $20 million Canadian rural partnership initiative. This initiative will support innovative programs to help rural Canadians find community solutions to challenges such as maintaining good soil and water and charting a successful course in a rapidly changing global economy.

In conclusion, the budget has foresight. It is balanced and it is leaning and looking toward building for the future in both rural Canada and especially among our young people.