Peter Stoffer

[Question No. 97—, February 1st, 2002]

In regard to the Tulsequah Chief Mine project: ( a ) which of the seventy stream crossings, sixty-four culverts and seven bridges to be undertaken in association with the proposed project pose the highest risks to the spawning or rearing habitats of the chinook, sockeye, coho, pink, chum salmon, and to the water quality in the area; ( b ) which of the proposed undertakings pose the greatest risk to other fish species in the area such as Dolly Varden char and whitefish, and cutthroat, bull and steelhead trout; ( c ) what are the estimated costs to pump back and treat the metals tailing seepage entering the Shazah wetland as a result of the project operations; ( d ) what are the concerns of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans related to post-closure issues and road issues including fish passage at crossings, sediment release from the road, the status of roads post-closure, habitat displacement at causeways, and the geotechnical stability of the road; ( e ) does the government acknowledge and support requests from the community, fishermen associations, NGOs, and the State of Alaska for the project to be referred to the Pacific Salmon Commission for study and recommendations, and if not, why not; ( f ) will government approval for the project constitute a breach of the “safe passage” provision in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and if not, why not; ( g ) what is the government's methodology for the calculation of reclamation bonding to limit taxpayer liability given the mine's remote location and acid mine drainage risks to critical fish habitat; and ( h ) why has the site never been reclaimed and acid drainage from the mine, identified by Environment Canada in 1995 as acutely toxic to fish, been allowed to continue to flow into the Tulsequah River?

Return tabled.

[Minister of National Defence, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious to all of Canada and the international community that the first Canadian casualty in the Afghanistan conflict is the minister.

No one in the military, no one on this side of the House, and especially Canadians, have any confidence left in the defence minister.

On behalf of all Canadians and on behalf of our military men and women who do such a great job for us, will the Minister of National Defence now do the honourable thing and resign his seat?

[Minister of National Defence, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let us try to get this straight. The defence minister said that he had not connected the photo of Canadians with prisoners in Afghanistan with a briefing he had received about Canadian soldiers taking prisoners in Afghanistan.

If, as the defence minister claims, there was only one incident of Canadians taking prisoners, and, as the minister said, he recognized the soldiers as Canadians, what did he think he was looking at? Was there more than one incident or is the minister still continuing to mislead the House?

[Motions for Papers, January 30th, 2002]

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the government's answer in that regard. I ask that Motion No. P-34 be transferred for debate in the House of Commons.

Motion transferred for debate

[Petitions, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hundreds of constituents in Nova Scotia it brings me great pleasure to present a petition relating to chromated copper arsenate, which is used in pressure treated wood. The petitioners pray that parliament will immediately ban the use of these compounds in pressure treated wood and other wood products.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague focused his remarks on other aspects, but I would like to give him the opportunity, seeing as how he comes from the great province of Saskatchewan, to remark on why and how the government, in this budget, after 22 months of waiting, completely ignored the concerns and needs of farm families in our country.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the infrastructure foundation is that it is not answerable to parliament. A committee of people will be picked by the Liberals. Who will decide what area of the country gets that infrastructure funding? It is another display of the Liberals ignoring parliament.

The auditor general said that she had great concerns about these foundations and what did the Liberals do? They brought in another one. I would like the hon. member's comments on that.

I wish to put on the record that the cat is out of the bag. The minister has told us that the first Sea King replacements should arrive by the end of 2005. The budget clearly indicates that is not going to happen. We have been saying all along that these replacements will be in 2007-08 and that is the fact of the matter, but that is just for the record.

I ask the member, why is the government ignoring the aspects of parliament and building a foundation to allocate resources in terms of infrastructure? Why should it not be from parliament?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in previous budgets there used to be employment figures and unemployment rate projections. They have not appeared in any of the budgets since 1996. Why have those figures been removed?

On page 9 of “The Budget Speech 2001” it says that the premise of the budget is to keep terrorists out. I have been on the phone most of the day with coast guard officials on both coasts. They said that the money allocated to the coast guard in the budget over a five year period would not stop terrorists from floating into Canada on all three of our coasts and doing us harm.

We need enhanced radar screens, coastal surveillance and flight patrols to keep terrorists out. Why has the budget not addressed those needs?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, even though I have great respect for the member who just spoke, I have to admit that only a Liberal could like this budget.

I ask her to turn to page 92 of the budget, table 5.1 expenditures. When she said that $1.6 billion would go to the military, she made it sound as if the money would go right now. The reality is that $400 million of that will go to emergency preparedness which has nothing to do with the military. It will go to other agencies. The fact is that $510 million of the money has already been spent on Operation Apollo and on military purchases, that is, the refueling and the sealift capability. That leaves close to $700 million over five years.

Only the arrogance of the Liberal government could give us a five year budget that is planned long after it assumes it might win the next election. The reality is that we can only take the budget for the term of this mandate. The Liberals gave us a budget that exceeds the mandate of their government.

It is only because of the Liberal government's arrogance that it can get away with this. It is surprising because the Liberals have a lot of very decent people on that side of the House. However to present a budget for Canada that extends the length of their mandate is unbelievable.

The one thing the member completely forgets when it comes to the military is that there was not one red cent and not one word about the Sea King replacements. Where is the money? Where is the deadline? Where is the timeline for the replacement of those helicopters?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is always amazing as a New Democrat to sit here and watch the Tories and Liberals banter over who is responsible for the high debt and deficit of the country when both are responsible.

I admired the speech of the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I agree with many of the things that he has said, especially regarding the military. The fact is that the budget was to end the terrorist threat in Canada as we would not allow terrorists in. However, when we look at the miniscule budget that went to the coast guard and the armed forces, terrorists can still drift into this nation and do whatever harm they wish to do. The budget will do nothing about that.

My great concern is that the previous budgets years ago used to have employment figures in them. There were targets for unemployment rates. Since 1996 those figures have disappeared. They are gone. There has been absolutely no commitment on the part of the government over the last eight years to tackle the unemployment situation or to even tell Canadians what the current rate of unemployment is, whether it is going up or down, and what the government is going to do about it.

Why does the hon. member think those figures are missing from previous budgets and this budget as well?