Peter Stoffer

[Petitions, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today to the House of Commons regarding the MAI and the conflict it would have in terms of direct investment by Canadian companies in order of their own country.

This certificate is on behalf of the Canadian auto workers, local 1990, a union of which I was a member for over 18 years. I am very proud today to present this petition on their behalf.

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is on behalf of thousands of people in coastal communities along B.C.'s west coast.

The minister of fisheries has staked a great deal in pursuing quiet diplomacy to resolve the west coast salmon dispute with the Americans. Yesterday the chief Canadian negotiator resigned, claiming it would be naive to continue with this present policy.

Does the minister agree with the views of his former chief negotiator? Does he now acknowledge the abject failure of this preferred approach? Will he please advise the House and the west coast fishers of the government's next—

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

I rise to speak in support of Bill C-18. I thank the Government of Canada for initiating this action. I would also like to mention a few concerns we have about the safety and concerns of our citizens and also the perspective the customs officers union presented to us. The customs officers were quite supportive that this bill would pass in order for them to do their job properly and in a more stringent matter so that they can protect especially the citizens in border towns.

The reservation I have is that the government in order to increase resources into the customs area will decrease resources from other police sources, that is the RCMP or that of local police officers. We encourage the government not to do that. We are quite pleased that it will include more resources for customs officers in order to do their job better.

I ask the government that when this bill is passed, which we hope will be very soon, to make sure the resources are there for the proper training of our customs officers to handle situations that at this time they have not been able to do.

On behalf of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other organizations which are fighting very hard in this country to get drunk drivers off our roads, I wish to thank the government as well as the official opposition and other opposition parties in the House for their support in passing this bill as quickly as possible.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party we do support this bill. We thank the government for its encouragement.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my comments within five minutes so as to allow my Progressive Conservative colleagues the opportunity to speak.

I want to send a special hello to the hon. member for Labrador who is watching us now from St. John's, Newfoundland. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members, for people who work in the House of Commons and for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when I say Godspeed and he is in our thoughts and prayers.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, if I had closed my eyes for a moment I would have sworn that was an NDP member of Parliament talking about education, health care and workers. My God, something is happening to the Reform Party.

I rise in opposition to Bill C-28. I find it rather amusing when my Reform colleagues talk about people making $15,000 a year and how difficult that would be. Yes, I agree. It is very difficult for any worker who is looking after children and making $15,000 a year to get by.

I also remind the House and all those who are listening that under the Reform agenda every worker in the country would probably make $15,000 or $20,000 a year. With its anti-union and anti-worker bias everybody would be making that. The Reform Party loves this global competition we are in.

Ever since free trade, the NAFTA and now that the MAI, which I call NAFTA on steroids, have come into effect all that has happened is that Canadian working standards have dropped and dropped. They tell us that Mexican and third world standards are supposed to rise, which we know is simply false.

I would like to talk about the taxation problems of a couple in my riding, Mr. and Mrs. Fleming, who live in Grand Lake, Nova Scotia. She has a plastic hip, plastic ankles and plastic knuckles. She is severely arthritic and requires oxygen cylinders to survive on a daily basis. She and her husband wanted to look after themselves in their own home.

The government has suggested that because of her needs she should be in a rehabilitation centre. That would cost the average Nova Scotian or Canadian taxpayer anywhere from $150 to $250 a day. All they are asking for from the government and from Revenue Canada is to be able to write off the equipment she requires so they can stay at home and look after themselves. I find it disturbing that the government, through our correspondence with Revenue Canada, will not even answer our letters or respond in kind to that type of situation.

The government is saying that it will spend thousands and thousands of dollars to look after them but these people want to stay at home and look after themselves, which would only cost a couple of thousand dollars. I find it absurd that the government would try to pass the comprehensive bill before us without thinking about the effect it will have on people.

Not once have I heard the Reform Party today speak about the GST or the HST. It would be a real pleasure if a Reformer stood in the House, especially for Atlantic Canadians, to say “If the government really wanted to do something about tax relief it would reduce the GST on essential home heating oils, electricity, children's clothing and reading materials”. That would mean broad tax relief for every Canadian, especially those in Atlantic Canada, and not just for the very wealthy.

The Liberals talked about the RESP educational funds. I should remind them that people need a job that pays well before they can save any money to put away for their children's future. I should remind them of what happened today in Goose Bay, Labrador. The defence minister stood in the House today to talk about how great the military is. I agree with him that we have one of the finest military organizations in the world. Unfortunately a lot of the civilian people who work in the military are being asked to make major sacrifices in their pay and benefits. Some of them will go from $13 an hour to $6.50 an hour. They will certainly not have enough money left in their pockets to get RESPs to look after their children's future education.

I have a question for Liberals and the Reformers especially. They talked about more money for charities and bigger tax deductions. My question is quite simple. Who is responsible for the welfare of those less fortunate in society?

I am speaking of the disabled, the infirm, people with no jobs, students and so on. Should it be government that looks after the welfare of those people, or should it be the responsibility of charities? I will let the House ponder that question for a while.

I also have a letter that a constituent in Nova Scotia wrote which shows the complexity of the tax system. If it is this complex how can we even trust the government to come up with something that is new? It brings to my attention an article on page 2 of Revenue Canada's winter 1997 GST-HST News, No. 27, entitled “Tax Status on Salads'.

Each year the tangle of absurdity of Revenue Canada seems to get worse and worse, but this surely is a masterpiece even by its sorry standards. Let me offer a portion. Food containing ingredients, whether mixed or not, such as chopped, shredded, diced, sliced or pureed vegetables, meat, fish, eggs or other food when supplied with a dressing and/or seasonings, whether or not the dressing is mixed with other ingredients, is considered to be a salad for the purposes of determining its GST-HST status. A combination of one ingredient and a dressing of seasonings which is sold or represented as a salad is also considered to be a salad. All supplies of salads, except those that are canned or vacuum sealed, are taxable at 7%, 15% in the participating provinces. Generally if there is no dressing or seasoning applied to the ingredients and no dressing or seasoning is packaged separately with the ingredients, the package is not considered to be a salad and is zero rated.

How many hours were spent trying to figure that one out? If this were not happening in my own country I would be mildly entertained. Sadly it is sand in the gears of commerce and enterprise.

I could not agree more that the bill the government is presenting is so complicated that even highly trained tax experts are having difficulty trying to get through it all. I ask members of the Liberal Party to send the bill back, to rethink their options and to simplify it so that ordinary Canadians and even many politicians here today could understand the complexities of the bill.

[Fisheries, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 40,000 Canadians in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, we would like to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his comments last Friday regarding the TAGS program. I quote “We felt it was important to support these people, help these people, and we will continue to do so”.

My question for the minister is now that he has committed the government to a continuation of the TAGS program, will he now tell us in this House the details of the government's new objective?

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I should remind my hon. colleagues on the backbenches of the Liberals that it was this government that brought the situation to this point.

Last August the minister of public works promised John Gustavson of the CDMA that there would be back to work legislation regardless of what happened in bargaining. Then he denied it. Then he reiterated that it was true. It was not the postal workers or small business that caused this uproar. We should not even be here tonight. It was this Liberal government that made promises behind the back of the negotiation process. That is where the problem was, and the NDP stands behind bargaining.

For the minister to make the accusation that we would in any way try to deflate small business in this country is simply scandalous. The fact is—

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I sure hope Hansard got every single word of the recent comments of my colleague from the Reform Party.

It is amazing that during question period a very passionate plea came from a Reform member from northern B.C. I lived for nine years in Watson Lake, Yukon, a town very close to Fort Nelson which he had mentioned in his question. He made a very passionate plea “for the federal government not to divest itself of the Fort Nelson airport. We need the federal government to keep its hands on Fort Nelson airport”. Not more than two hours later they turn around and say that the government has to get out of coal mining.

I would really like to know what side of its mouth the Reform Party is going to talk from today. One minute the government is no good and the next minute we need the government. Please, for the sake of all Canadians and for their constituents, the Reform Party should make up its mind. It is unbelievable. I find it amazing that no matter what the subject members on the Reform benches think the solution is always fire public servants, sell off public assets and return to some ideal state of nature that sounds like a cross between Sunday school and the wild west.

I know the hon. member will find this hard to believe but most people in Canada do not want an American style government which does nothing for working people but lectures them on morality. Most Canadians want a government that will stand up for people and make job creation its number one priority. That is why I am here, to push this government to help create jobs on Cape Breton Island.

Yes, crown corporations like Devco have been inefficient. It is not because of the workers. It is because of a handful of powerful men who have made themselves rich at taxpayer expense. The problem is not the crown corporations. The problem is the people who ride the gravy train.

I have lived in Nova Scotia for nine years and it is a great honour for me to look in the cameras and face all of Canada and wholeheartedly support my hon. colleagues from Cape Breton. I thank them for their wonderful efforts in trying to get this motion through the House.

I also wish to thank the hon. House leader of the Conservative Party for his gracious remarks with regard to this motion. After what the hon. member has had to go through for the last few years with Westray, and I know I do not need to go into what has happened with Westray, it is a very emotional time for him to stand in this House and mention coal mining in his area let alone Cape Breton. He deserves the kudos from the New Democratic Party and all Canadians.

The other day I was in Cape Breton and I met three absolutely wonderful people. They are miners José Pimentel and Victor Tomecheck and the head of the UMWA. I wear its pin with pride. They are trying to get us to move this government in the direction of making Donkin part of the Devco corporation plan. It is imperative for this to happen.

I encourage all members of this House and all Canadians to head up to Cape Breton and take North America's most beautiful scenic route, the Cabot Trail. Those who choose to do that can stop at wonderful areas like Chéticamp, Louisburg and Sydney. They will understand the feeling and the love Cape Bretoners have for the rest of Canada and they will be able to return that love.

A young woman stood up at a conference the other day and said “ladies and gentlemen, I am 18, I am a female and I am a Cape Bretoner”. According to the Reformers that is three strikes against her, get out of there. That is a scandalous shame. I find that hard to believe. I would have loved it if the Reformers could have been at that conference in Centennial hall to tell her “there is no future for you here, out you go. Government is no good, we can't help you. Let the dogs eat you”. I get really mad when I get on this subject.

The hon. Liberal member from Newfoundland did not give us an answer on whether he supports this motion or not. I would really like an answer before we recess today. Is the Liberal Party in favour of this motion or not? No political answer, just a yes or no. It would be greatly appreciated by those miners in Cape Breton.

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Sackville—Eastern Shore to declare the New Democratic Party's continuing support in principle for Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.

I am proud to speak in support of this initiative and to recommend that the final report be accepted by the House. All Canadians will benefit from the preservation of this unique marine ecosystem.

I trust the spirit of co-operation demonstrated by all parties toward establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park will continue through further efforts to protect Canada's role in this area throughout the 36th Parliament as we strive to protect our natural heritage for future generations.

I wish to acknowledge the work undertaken by the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to expedite the passage of Bill C-7. The wisdom and guidance shown by the committee chair, my distinguished colleague from Lac St. Louis, deserves recognition from all members of the House. I congratulate all committee members and associates for their invaluable insights, comments and level of co-operation.

As I stated at second reading and as mentioned by my colleagues at that time, this notable effort has involved the participation of many Canadians. The communities were consulted. Aboriginal participation was ensured and input from all stakeholders was accepted.

The public participation process incorporated throughout the conception of Bill C-7 and in the evolution to the final report before us today is a fine example of what can be accomplished when Canadians agree on a challenge and together strive toward a common purpose and achieve a just conclusion.

As I sated at second reading and shall mention again, the degree of intergovernmental co-operation serves as a hallmark which I hope can be applied to future endeavours between federal and provincial governments.

I would be remiss if I did not draw attention to several matters raised in a previous debate regarding Bill C-7, by participants during the years of marine park development, and through recent consultations and correspondence received by the New Democratic Party.

I acknowledge and accept, as mentioned earlier in my speech, the wisdom and guidance demonstrated by my distinguished colleague from Lac St. Louis. His ability to expedite the progress of Bill C-7 and to ensure implementation without further delay is a credit to the House and a fine reference to Parliament's ability to serve Canadians in a positive manner.

I call upon my colleagues, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of State for Parks, to acknowledge and commit to the following requests submitted by concerned Canadians.

I agree the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park has involved an admirable public participation process over many years. To have asked for further consultations, to have called for numerous amendments and to have requested various forms of additional review would have resulted in unnecessary and detrimental delays.

I call upon members of the House to acknowledge and include in the consideration of further marine park projects the following language in the preamble and purpose of future bills:

That the preamble shall include such language as to reflect a desire “to conserve and to maintain the integrity of the natural ecosystems within the park's boundaries”.

I do not intend to portray Bill C-7 as ignoring this principle. Nor do I call for an amendment. I wish to convey to my colleagues an opportunity to strengthen the underlying purpose for establishing marine parks, which is to conserve and preserve our natural heritage for this and future generations.

The following addition to the purpose of future marine park bills will assist in a successful marine parks program and increase the level of protection of marine ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations:

This will be done by preserving and maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems within the park boundaries, and in particular by protecting and aiding the recovery of species and populations designated at risk.

I ask my colleagues to acknowledge these requests so that they may be included for consideration in future noble park efforts.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on these matters. I will voice again the support of the New Democratic Party for the acceptance of the final report, Bill C-7.

On a personal note, I hope that the same co-operation exists when it comes time to debate park status for Lawler and McNabb Island in the beautiful harbour of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

[Tags, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. It concerns the government's plans for the end to the TAGS program.

How could the minister expect Canadians to take him seriously when he says that the government is working on plans to help out the affected communities after TAGS is finished and we know he is telling the RCMP and his own officials they should get ready for the fact that they will be doing nothing?

The minister now has a copy of the leaked document before him. Will he explain why the government is making plans for a social disaster in fishing communities instead of preventing the end of assistance for fishing communities and the people in those areas?