Peter Stoffer

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my hon. colleague from the beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Would he not agree that if the government wanted to give tax breaks or tax concessions to the majority of Canadians that a 1% reduction in the GST-HST, as we have in our province, would be a great start to reducing the tax burden on average Canadians?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member not admit that what the federal government has done over the past five or six years is to download its responsibilities for Canadians in various social services to the provinces, and because of the belt tightening by the federal government the provinces have now had to download their responsibilities to the municipalities?

I do not believe there is a municipality in Canada that has not suffered from a lack of provincial funding in terms of municipal services. The provinces turn around and say that it is because of a lack of federal funding for the various concerns, whether it be infrastructure, education or health. Would the member not agree that that was basically the premise of the federal government?

Would he not agree that the $7 billion for this year alone taken from unemployed workers and employers who also pay that premium, money that does not belong to the federal government, is really the basis for the surplus of this budget?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the previous speaker from the Liberal Party and I have a very simple question.

Does the member know how much was in the EI surplus or how much is in it and can she tell the House, in her opinion, where it is?

[United Nations Biosafety Protocol, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations biosafety protocol negotiations are under way in Cartagena, Columbia.

On February 11, the European parliament voted on legislation to make biotech companies legally responsible for the adverse effects of releasing living modified organisms.

We have learned that this Liberal government is negotiating against liability or redress responsibilities in Cartagena.

My questions for the government will be: What will protect Canadian farmers if a biotech crop fails? Why is the government against liability for biotech companies?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-63.

I want to take a more personal perspective on it. As an immigrant to this country it was an honour when I, with my parents and my other brothers and sisters, finally swore the oath of allegiance to Canada. I have an understanding of what an absolutely wonderful thrill that was. Growing up in such a free and great country as Canada, I had hoped that other immigrants and other people wanting to come here would not be side stepped or roadblocked or delayed in any way from their achieving the same possibilities that my family and I have achieved.

Unfortunately Bill C-63 is a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare. To say to people coming here that they may or may not be accepted as citizens of this country because of bureaucratic bungling in the department is unacceptable. It goes to prove that the people who drafted the bill did not think of all the particulars. It would have been better if they had taken more time and carefully drafted the bill.

I also have concerns regarding the oath of allegiance. Even though I come from an area which is very much in favour of the monarchy, there are many aspects to the oath of allegiance that I think need to be modernized and accepted to more Canadians. The previous speaker from the Reform Party was correct that there should have been a wide open debate. Something of this importance in stature across the country should have been open to all Canadian to debate exactly what kind of an oath of allegiance we should have for new Canadians.

The concern that is often neglected in the aspect of citizenry is our aboriginal people. They were the first citizens of this country. Nobody asked them. They seem to get bypassed in all these circumstances and everything else. We came to this country 400 or 500 years ago and literally took over from them. They had a very good way of life for thousands of years and we came in an said we were going to change everything. That is stretching the argument a bit, but unfortunately the fact is they are an integral part of our society.

We talk about two founding nations in this country. We actually have three and they were the first. The part that really disturbs me is the fact of having an understanding of the French or English language, the two official languages. It is really a hardship on new immigrants who come to this country. There is no question that when my family came here they hardly knew a word of English at all, not a word. According to the bill they could be restricted from entering this country because of an act of that nature. I find that wrong. I wish that the minister and the government would take that back and review the situation and go through the clauses that many of us on the opposition side feel are flawed in this department and in this bill.

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia is really concerned about the crocodile tears shed by the Minister of Transport and his Liberal colleagues when it comes to homelessness.

If John Cleghorn of the Royal Bank makes $2 million to $3 million he gets a $16,000 tax break. If Al Flood of the CIBC makes $3 million he gets a $24,000 tax break. Instead of giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Canadians, would that money not have gone to better use, for example, to compensate for all hepatitis C victims?

I speak not on behalf of or for the member for Saint John, but would that money not have gone to better use for our beloved merchant marines who have been struggling against this government to try to get recognition and compensation for their work? Instead this government in this budget turns around and gives the wealthiest Canadians tax breaks. Would he not agree that is a shame?

[Public Service, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of taxation employees spent the day at home with full pay while table two blue collar workers walked the picket line from coast to coast.

Last night in Halifax over 400 employees stated that the economic discrimination policy known as regional rates of pay is the number one issue. Instead of avoiding the workers and prolonging the strike, will the minister commit today to sit down at the bargaining table and once and for all negotiate the issue of regional rates of pay?

[Public Service, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one truth is definitely out there. Regional rates of pay policy by this government is economic discrimination among the lowest paid of the public service workers. Today marks the end of the fourth week of rotating strikes by the table two employees and Treasury Board has refused to meet with them since mid-December. Next week the strike will escalate clear across the country.

My question for the minister is why are you refusing to meet and why do you not end the regional rates of pay at this time?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker. Darrell Daniels of Port Alberni, British Columbia writes: “I am 23 and I have lost hope. I went to Manitoba and Alberta looking for work but all I could find were part time jobs”.

He could not get enough hours for EI. He was turned down for job training because he has never collected EI and therefore was not eligible. For a young person like him, 910 hours of work is far too much. He will now have to apply for welfare. What can the hon. member and her government do for this one person?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Liberal Party mentioned one at a time. Here is one person, Darrell Daniels from Port Alberni, B.C. I would like her to say what she can do for him. He writes: “I am 23 and I have lost hope. I went to Manitoba and Alberta looking for work but all I found were part time jobs”.