Peter Stoffer

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one of the major faults of the throne speech is the lack of real detail as to what the government's plan will be for medicare in the country. It keeps telling us to wait for the Romanow report. However there is one thing I would like to hear from the official opposition. What is its plan for the future of medicare in Canada?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of the NDP, I swear that the hon. member does not look a day over 30. I can assure her of that.

The member talked eloquently about seniors. I do not think that anybody in the House would reject any assistance for seniors, but we are still taxing seniors who bring in only $15,000 a year. Why would seniors give taxes to the government when it turns around and wastes the money?

Here are three examples of the terrific waste of money: $100 million for two Challenger jets to which the DND said no; $900 million for a gun registry bill that was only supposed to cost $85 million, and was a complete waste of money; and a new building which is going up on Parliament Hill for $211 million when there is available space for lease all around us. Why should seniors who make minimum fixed incomes pay taxes to the government when it obviously squanders money?

[Employment Insurance Act, October 3rd, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill 206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (persons who leave employment to be care-givers to family members).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members of the House for unanimous consent. This is the third time that I have introduced this bill in the House of Commons.

Basically, the bill would provide financial help for people who give care to those who are terminally ill or under a palliative care situation.

In this country we have something called maternity leave. If somebody has a baby they can take a year off with maternity leave or paternity leave. However when someone is gravely ill or they are under a palliative care situation, we have nothing at the end of someone's life to provide for the caregiver in a financial or job protection way.

I thank the government for putting in the throne speech that it will seriously look at this issue. This private member's bill will assist the government greatly in speeding that resolution along.

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

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I beg the indulgence of the House. I think you would find that there is unanimous consent for me to introduce a private member's bill. I apologize to the House for not doing it earlier this morning.

May I seek unanimous consent to do that, Mr. Speaker?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the throne speech was also lacking an industrial strategy, for example when it comes to shipbuilding. The former minister of industry came forth with a committee and a unanimous recommendation in a report that was done with business, the provinces, the municipalities, labour, and with the support of many on the backbench of the Liberal Party. That was called “Breaking Through”. That was to have an industrial strategy toward shipbuilding in this country. It was completely ignored in the throne speech.

That indication toward the shipbuilding policy could have indicated the possibility that thousands of people could be working in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario and on the west coast. I would like my learned colleague to explain why he thinks that was completely ignored by the Liberal government in the throne speech.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not feel any better today than I did yesterday. The reality of the throne speech is that it completely ignored the issues of Atlantic Canada, namely the fishing industry, the coast guard and coastal patrols. The most important needs of our military have been completely ignored. Military spending was strictly ignored.

At the same time the government is taking $60 million out of the Atlantic economy for the airport security tax and only putting $10 million back in for security. Where is the other $50 million? Why is the government so ignorant when it comes to rural issues, shipbuilding, the military, farmers and especially seniors in rural areas, those who were at one time collecting the disability tax credit?

The hon. member may not understand or may not realize that the government is now changing the definition of feeding oneself and clothing oneself which makes it even more restrictive for the most vulnerable in our society to collect the tax credit. Why is the government so hateful and hurtful toward those people in Atlantic and rural Canada?

[National Defence, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The government is in contractual talks with Tibbett & Britten of England to privatize the supply chain of our military.

Over 1,600 public service workers and over 3,000 businesses are very concerned that there has been no security, no savings and no scrutiny of this contract.

Will the defence minister assure all parliamentarians and all Canadians that no contract will be signed until the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and the auditor general have a thorough review of this project?

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from St. John's West and the hon. member for Malpeque for their comments.

There is concern about how custodial management would work. Some people have contacted me to say we would kick the foreigners off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. That is not necessarily so. Our interpretation of custodial management means other nations would be allowed to fish in the waters but under Canadian management and enforcement. That would be a good thing for Atlantic Canada and, for that matter, all of Canada.

Could my hon. colleague elaborate a bit on that?

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing up this subject today. I am rather intrigued as an NDP member about the concerns that he has expressed. We in the NDP, especially the critics for foreign affairs, labour and agriculture, have raised the issue several times about what is happening to trade union representatives in Colombia. We are sad that Ingrid Betancourt has been kidnapped and her life could be in serious peril, but at the same time a lot of union leaders themselves who represent the people and average workers in Colombia are being exterminated as we speak. Would the member elaborate a bit more on those concerns that we have expressed, about the fact that many people who represent ordinary citizens in Colombia are being singled out as well?

[National Defence, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that the continued delay of the Sea King procurement is because NH Industries, which is two-thirds owned by Eurocopter, has asked for the delay because it indeed cannot meet the requirements set forth by the split procurement process.

Coincidentally, Mr. David Miller, formerly of Eurocopter, is now a senior policy adviser of the Prime Minister.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is David Miller, formerly of Eurocopter and now a member of the Prime Minister's policy advisory bureau, in any way, shape or form involved in the Sea King procurement process?