Peter Stoffer

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member from British Columbia is simply this: does he or does he not believe that subjects like health care, education, and water and sewer systems in major centres should be part of the negotiation process in the FTAA? A yes or no answer would suffice.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague for Windsor—St. Clair this question. The auto pact, which served Canada extremely well since 1965 if I am not mistaken, is now gone.

Could the member please tell the House exactly what fears those auto plant workers and their families have now that the auto pact is gone?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that the hon. member from Alberta, who I have a great respect for, mentioned the Mexican economy and the uplifting of that economy because of free trade. The reality is that post-NAFTA in Mexico free trade has created one new billionaire and 100 new millionaires, but the average Mexican income since NAFTA has declined. That is the reality. That is the truth. Also, the environmental concerns in Mexico have declined.

My question for the hon. member is similar to a question that I had for the member for Skeena about the softwood lumber agreement. The member for Skeena said, if I am not mistaken, that the Alliance Party supports equal access to the U.S. markets for our country's softwood lumber. The reality is that in the maritime region 80% of the harvested lumber comes from private lands, whereas 80% to 90% of the harvested lumber in British Columbia comes from crown land. Already there is a difference.

In order to maintain the economic well-being of those lumber industries within Atlantic Canada, would the hon. member not support the maintaining of the maritime accord, which is in place and has been very beneficial for the people of Atlantic Canada?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the views of the member from Kootenay when he speaks of getting together with a group of parliamentarians, not necessarily from the House but maybe from provincial legislatures and from other democracies around the world as well, to discuss these issues on a continuous basis to see where they can be changed. Nothing is written in stone. We need to alter, reflect, review and renew exactly what is going on. I respect his views and it is something I believe the House could seriously look at.

However, he discussed Mr. Blair, the prime minister of England, and his views. I remember the speech very well. Our party was the only party that did not clap when Mr. Blair spoke of the nuances in terms of free trade. Our point is that Mr. Blair had a woeful ignorance toward the NAFTA deal when he tried to portray free trade or NAFTA as being similar to the European economic union deal. That was simply nonsense. They are simply two different things.

My question for the hon. member from Kootenay and the Alliance Party is this: does he not believe that the environment, human rights, labour standards and the ability of municipal, provincial and federal governments to enact laws to protect their citizens as they see fit should be paramount in any trade deals that are discussed in the near future?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Winnipeg eloquently stated the fact that drug companies are asking for further protection. After their 20 year protection laws, now they are asking for 23 to 25 years, if I am not mistaken.

The fact of the matter is that since that protection law came into effect under the Conservative government, drug prices have risen almost fivefold. We now spend more on drugs in the country than we do on doctors' fees. That is an incredible problem the country has to face.

I was wondering if the member from Winnipeg could elaborate a bit more on that. If this trade deal goes ahead as it is, does she see more escalating prices on drugs and a lowering of the effect that doctors have in the country as well?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the rest of the country had just listened to my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre, they would truly understand the apprehension that we in this party have toward the upcoming trade talks.

Foreign corporations can sue Canadian crown corporations for legitimate services, as in the case of UPS suing Canada Post. Could the member elaborate a bit on what exactly happens when a foreign corporation sues a Canadian crown corporation?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. He is still a very young member of the House but was able to claim a third term as a member of parliament. That is quite a record to achieve. He obviously has great respect from his constituents. I wish that he would speak more often in the House as it would be very enlightening for us.

One thing I have noticed in his speeches throughout the years is his approach toward young people in universities. Could he elaborate more on his perspective about university students in Quebec and what their approach or attitude is toward the FTAA and the upcoming talks in Quebec City?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Alliance Party for bringing up the issue of softwood lumber because, as he knows, in Atlantic Canada the maritime accord, which has given us an exemption over the recent agreements, has been very beneficial for us in Atlantic Canada.

Do the member and his party support Atlantic Canada being able to maintain the maritime accord when it comes to any future softwood lumber agreements?

[Multiculturalism, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago Jean Charest sent a letter to a judge and was disciplined. The member for Fredericton had loose lips on an aircraft and was disciplined. The member for Edmonton—Strathcona did a little thing wrong with his assistant and was disciplined.

The member for Vancouver Centre contacted the RCMP in strict violation of cabinet code and everything else that is ethical in the House. I ask my question as a former British Columbian. What will the Prime Minister do to discipline the member for Vancouver Centre, to put some ethical treatment back into the House?

[Multiculturalism, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for years now the Solicitor General of Canada has been saying that government does not interfere in police investigations before, during or after.

We now have newspaper reports that indicate that the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and her staff have been contacting RCMP officials regarding racism activities in British Columbia.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What she has done to the House and to the people of Prince George is absolutely scandalous. Her apology is not good enough. What ethical leadership will the Prime Minister show in the House to discipline that member for what she said to the good people of Prince George?