Peter Stoffer

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that when it comes to health care the Alliance and the Bloc think alike in allowing the provinces to do whatever they please and damn the federal government or a national coast to coast to coast medicare system.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. Regarding the NAFTA trade deal the Conservatives and Liberals signed with the Americans and Mexico and regarding the concerns they have on the health care crisis, it is a coincidence that we have the drug patent law, which was passed in the eighties, along with these trade deals, yet the financial burden has been placed on health care. Would he elaborate a bit more on that?

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on that, would he support or at least look at the possibility of a national pharmacare program adjacent to our national health care program that would especially assist our seniors? The population is getting older and more seniors are relying on these pharmaceuticals. Would the hon. member support a national pharmacare program in order to offset the additional costs that seniors will have to face in the near future?

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, pharmaceutical drugs are the major cost implication when it comes to health care. Since the Conservatives, under Brian Mulroney, brought in the drug patent legislation, drug prices have tripled to the point where we now pay more for pills than we do for doctors' fees.

Quite clearly the most expensive system within the health care system is controlled by the private sector. With the over 20 year patent protection that the drug companies have and with the escalating cost of drugs for people, what would the member's party specifically recommend to control drug costs across the country? What would he do to help the generic companies offset those costs so that Canadians can have better access to cheaper drugs in their long term health care?

[National Horse of Canada Act, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to today's bill about the Canadian horse. It was our hon. colleague of 20 years in the House, Mr. Nelson Riis, who spoke on behalf of the bill several years ago and said back then how pleased he was to be able to speak on the bill in order to move it forward.

I would like to bring attention to John and Ruth Ann Hart who live in the Margaree Valley of Cape Breton who actually breed the Canadian horse. They have several of them and are very supportive and proud of the fact that the House of Commons would take time out of its extremely busy schedule to debate a notion that is important to them because they would like to see the Canadian horse become a national symbol.

I say to my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois that they have every right to stand up in the House and be proud of the Canadian horse. However they should be equally as proud to share that recognition with all of Canada and not just narrow it down to one area. Historically, the Canadian horse was found throughout the entire country, not just in one area. I plead to their good senses and to their great hearts and compassion to understand that by spreading the news of the Canadian horse throughout the country would do Quebec an awful lot of good in this sentimental argument we are having of where the horse should be.

Nova Scotia currently has over 56 of these fine animals to be found at Sherbrooke Village, Highland Village in Iona, Fortress Louisbourg and the Ross Farm. After a long absence from the province they originally came back to the Margaree Valley in 1987. One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that these types of horses were used to assist in the American Civil War.

It is imperative that we move on to the recognition of the Canadian horse, a special breed with a long history. The Canadian horse is extremely proud, tough, good-natured and strong in endurance. What better thing can we call Canadian than that? Mr. Speaker, I say without reservation that you will have neigh objection from this side of the House.

[Taxation, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, prior to Christmas, one of the greatest insults the government has ever presented to Canadians was the disability tax credit form that was sent out to 106,000 Canadians. These are the most vulnerable people in our society and, what is worse, the government is making the people with disabilities pay for the new form.

Will the government get rid of the offensive form that is attacking the most vulnerable people in our society and allow them to claim the disability tax credit as they have in the past?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the finance critic for the NDP.

The budget did not include aspects concerning seniors and the disabled. As the federal Liberal government was bringing down the budget, the revenue department was sending out what I call the greatest insult to people with disabilities. A letter was received by 106,000 people. This new form stated that if a person could walk in an ordinate amount of time with a device on a flat surface, then that person would no longer able to collect the disability tax credit.

We held a press conference in my riding. One gentleman who is 60 years old has been missing a leg since he was 13. When he got this insult in the mail, he thanked the Liberals because only the Liberals could take away his disability. Unfortunately, when he looked down the leg was still missing.

If a person is missing a leg, would the hon. member consider that person to have a slight disability? If that is correct, why would the federal Liberal government take away the tax credit?

Most of these people get a tax credit from $200 to $800 a year to offset their additional costs for clothing, devices or whatever it is they require to have a semblance of a normal life. The government is trying to take it away from them. It is an insult to seniors and people with disabilities. Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Armed Forces, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ombudsman to the defence department issued his report on post-traumatic stress disorder.

Many members of our military and their families suffer from this terrible affliction. There are many recommendations by the ombudsman for the government to act to protect the mental health of our troops and their families.

My question for the defence minister is this. Will he now allocate the necessary resources and the personnel to combat post-traumatic stress disorder?

[Questions in the House of Commons, February 5th, 2002]

Yes, when Pearson was in and the whole bit.

The fact is that it is has changed and I cannot believe the metamorphosis of the Prime Minister, who says “I'm standing here for the little guy. I'm the little guy from Shawinigan”. The fact is, I am five inches shorter than he is. The reality is that he is not standing here for the little guy. He is standing up for his corporate elite friends and those people do not want that information to come out. That is completely unacceptable.

I stand here on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party. We support the motion of the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest. We will do everything we can to continue to harass or harangue or bug the government and we will take any steps we can in order to get information on behalf of our constituents.

[Questions in the House of Commons, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for bringing forward the motion today. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is my colleague, as we share neighbouring ridings in Nova Scotia, and there is one thing he forgets. He forgets the fact that it is the taxpayers of Canada who sent us here and it is to the taxpayers of Canada that we should be answerable.

I want to touch on one thing very briefly. My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned members of parliament who cross the floor. I have always thought that people who did that were the scum of the political earth, first class political sycophants. If they do not have the courage of their convictions to face their voters in a byelection before they cross the floor, they have no right to sit in this hon. House of Commons. That is all I will say about that for the moment.

I would like to read to the House something that was in the Hill Times this week. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, basically says:

I wouldn't use the word “corruption”, but you know the best measure against that is public knowledge--

That is what we are talking about. He is talking about making the following disclosure this week to the House affairs committee:

--important money is obviously being given and the public doesn't know about it--

This is in terms of leadership, electoral and political races in the country.

He states:

They don't know how much and they don't know who and if we go to the fundamental values in the Elections Act, one of them is transparency.

He says that the Canada Elections Act is supposed to call for “total transparency” and that is no longer the order of the day.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, a well respected person in Canada, says that about the Canada Elections Act and what we are saying in the House of Commons is that this is what we are asking for in the production of papers. We want openness and transparency, but like what Mr. Kingsley said about the elections act, it is no longer the case. It is all secretive. The Liberals have a majority, so why not use the hammer and put away any kind of effort from the opposition? I would even suspect that a lot of their own backbenchers ask very pertinent questions on behalf of their constituents.

What do we get on top of all of this? We get the treasury board saying that ministers and their staff are exempt from freedom of information when it comes to their expense accounts. What utter nonsense. Just who do these people think they are? They are elected by the Canadian taxpayers. They have absolutely no right to hide that information from them. What they say about cabinet disclosure and cabinet confidentiality is utter nonsense. That kind of drivel originates from the south end of a northbound cow.

What is incredible is how many times on a Wednesday or after cabinet meetings that we have leaks greater than a sieve to the general public. Half of the Globe and Mail and the National Post know what goes on in cabinet meetings long before most of the Liberals do.

It is just utter nonsense when they hide behind cabinet confidentiality. The reality is that we are here because of the Canadian taxpayers. We owe it to them to get the information they ask us for.

I myself have had a production of papers motion because there is a mine site about to start operating in northern British Columbia. The fact is that this mine could cause great damage to salmon bearing rivers in that area. All we asked for was information on who said what to whom about this mine site. We want to know on behalf of Canadians whether all environmental regulations are being met. We want to know if all the criteria were met before the aspects of this mine were put in place. That is all we are asking for and we get the runaround every single time.

Another aspect of the runaround is the split procurement process for the Sea Kings. Have we ever heard greater nonsense?

That is why the minister of defence has absolutely no bearing any more when it comes to the military or Canadian people. They treat him as a joke. The fact is, he cannot even do the simple thing of convincing his cabinet colleagues to buy as simple a thing as a helicopter. When he tells us that they will be here at the end of 2005, there is no way that can happen. He is simply misleading the House, but mind you, he is very good at that.

Mr. Speaker, I know I have gone off the track and I will get back on. The whole aspect of it is that when someone asks for production of papers it should not take a year to try to get an answer.

Those of us in opposition and, I would suspect, a lot of backbenchers are asking information of the government every day. We need to have those answers back in a timely fashion. Forty-five days is too long but that should be adequate for the government with all its resources and all the people behind it to get those answers back to us in a timely fashion.

We can only surmise and assume that government members do not want to give that information, that they want to hide behind it. That is not democracy. That is not transparency. That just makes Canadians even more angry at politicians. When Canadians get more angry at politicians they in turn ignore the democratic electoral process and we all suffer because of it. That is unacceptable.

My colleague from New Brunswick Southwest asked a very simple question and he wanted some papers on it. That is all the government had to provide. I myself asked for some papers on a mine site in northern British Columbia. I do not know how that can be so difficult. Earlier this year another colleague, from the Alliance Party, asked for production of papers. What a hassle it was to get this stuff. I have absolutely no understanding of why, unless it is my own personal bias or belief in things, but the fact is that the government is continually hiding something.

When something is hidden from an opposition member of parliament or even from the backbench, it is actually being hidden from the Canadian people. That is unacceptable. We are slowly losing the values this country was built on. What is really amazing is that as a kid growing up, although I was a New Democrat my whole life, I always had assumed that the Liberal Party would be the one that would be the most honest, the most open, the most transparent.

[Privilege, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that what my hon. colleague and friend from South Shore is saying is that if the troops pay the ultimate liability, government and parliamentarians must pay the ultimate responsibility for their well-being. I agree with him that this needs further review and serious consideration about the competency of the government.

It has come to our attention that a lot of depleted uranium is being used in Afghanistan. We saw what happened with depleted uranium being used in the gulf war. Does the hon. member' party support the use of depleted uranium in the conflict in Afghanistan.