Peter Stoffer

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as members of parliament we should not be advocating one company over another in the House. We should be advocating a clear, open and transparent contract so that all companies have fair bids on it.

In my earlier question to the minister of public works I said a particular company was being excluded from the contract because of the way the tender process was set up. I did not mention the name of the company. The minister mentioned the name of the company, which was Cormorant.

This obviously smacks and reeks of political interference. Could the hon. member from the Alliance Party elaborate on that?

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was quite clear. I asked why the change in the wording of the contract from mandatory to preferred.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, from what the minister just said, and I say this with all due respect, the reality is that this is simple nonsense.

The fact is that this contract was split to exclude one particular company, the company that had the original EH-101. If the government decided that possibly that company would have been the most successful bidder today, then we would be asking the government why it cancelled the contract in 1993 in the first place. That is the reality.

I have the following question for the minister. When the initial tender process for the helicopters went out, it stated that it was “mandatory” that it be completed by 2005. Now we have word that it has been changed to read that it would be “preferred” to have the helicopter replaced by 2005.

Would the minister please explain the change?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. In his speech he mentioned immigration based on economic requirements. I believe those were his words. Years ago his former leader raised that issue and it caused a lot of concern throughout the country about what it basically meant.

Could the hon. member clarify again exactly what it means when he stands and says that immigration should be based on either economic levels or economic requirements? I just wanted to give him the chance to clarify. Is he saying, and I do not think he is, that we should base immigration levels on our economic requirements or a wider parameter?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I came to Canada in 1956 from Holland with my family, as did the hon. member. We left for purely economic reasons. This country gave our family, like is, a tremendous uplift and a wonderful life. I too would like to thank Canada for the opportunity it has given us, as did the hon. member from Vancouver Island.

He talked about the aspect of trade with the third world countries and with other countries in order to lift their standards. He is right; trade is the way to do that. However, when we discuss trade deals should the environment, human rights and labour standards not be negotiated prior to any commercial agreements on the trade deals?

He mentioned that he was in Colombia. He must know the standards of the third world countries, especially like Colombia. In the last 16 months 192 trade unionists have been slaughtered there. He knows that is happening.

These are the things that the NDP has mentioned time and time again. If we are going to have trade deals in a hemispheric kind of way, union and labour rights must be protected and environmental standards must be met. The people can then build themselves up so they can stay and live in their countries and become part of the global economic system.

Would he not agree that would be a way to go?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member talk about immigration and our ability to protect our borders.

A lot of these people leave these third world countries because of desperation and economic needs. There is a root to this problem, and that is with international trade. We must ensure that trade agreements in other countries contain proper environmental, labour and health standards so we can build up those standards and these people will not have to become illegal immigrants to escape the poverty that they are facing.

Would the hon. member not agree that part of the problem should be in our trade deals, that we should ensure that those people have their basic human rights adhered to, as we do in this country?

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague who is a long time veteran of the House of Commons. He has been pushing reforms like this in a very even handed manner. He is not saying that it will benefit strictly our party or diminish another party. He is basically saying is we need this debate for all Canadians.

My question for him would be how do we translate the debate today into the average Canadians' lives to make it relevant so that they can push their members of parliament to have this debate in the future?

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of Canada was listening to our hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre talk about where that money should go. He is absolutely correct that a facility that is already up and running has been severely cut back.

I believe that what the $100 million will do is allow the government to say that it is arm's length, that it is no longer responsible and that it will shuffle its responsibility off somewhere else.

Our former colleague Peter Mancini from Cape Breton brought up the issue of the tar ponds time and time again in the House of Commons. Environment minister after environment minister from the program went to Cape Breton said that something needed to be done. They are still talking about the cleanup of Canada's worst environmental mess.

My question for the hon. member is about using $100 million to set up some sort of agency. If that money cannot go to his particular area of Winnipeg for the institute, would it not be better spent in cleaning up the tar ponds once and for all?

[National Defence, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Last week in the House he said that once the applications were in he would go back to cabinet to see if there was any more money.

The merchant mariners have done more for the country than the government ever has. What those remaining veterans and their surviving spouses would like to know is whether there is enough money left in the pot to satisfy all the needs of the merchant mariners in their compensation claim against the government.

[National Defence, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians wish to know and have it verified that the government is to cut our air force by half.

Will the minister of defence please tell Canada, those men and women working in our military service and those civilian workers in air force bases around the country that their jobs and bases will be protected? Will Canada maintain control of its sovereignty over its waters and the far Arctic as well?