Peter Stoffer

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we should be talking about finances and issues of taxation, exactly what the hon. member spoke about for the first eight minutes of his speech. He talked about the NDP wanting to redistribute the wealth. I remind him that we have not said that. We have said that it is better to redistribute allocation of resources.

An example is our fishing communities on the east and west coasts. DFO's practices and policies have allocated that common property resource to fewer and fewer hands, which is the corporate sector. That sector gets richer and richer while thousands of people lose their livelihoods to partake in the economy he talked about. Would the member not agree that a better allocation of resources, which would enable people to work in their coastal communities, would be a better way to end child poverty in those communities?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate one of the member's colleagues mentioned the child tax credit that was given to the provinces and how the provinces were clawing some of that back. He is right. The provinces are clawing some of that back but the reason is that the federal government allowed them to do it in their negotiations.

Why did the federal government allow the provinces the ability to claw back the child tax credit?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the Conservative Party for the motion and for bringing up the problem with our veterans and those in our military.

The member is talking about compensation for the merchant marines which I wholeheartily support. But he would also apply that compensation to our Buchenwald vets as well. I would like his comments on what he thinks Canada should do for our Buchenwald vets who have been fighting for proper compensation an awfully long time. Does he agree they should be compensated as well?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently as the Conservatives talked about what it is like to be a Conservative. I remind them that they had nine years in government to fix a lot of the problems and to set the way.

I wanted to talk to the member about the summit he proposed. What happens in non-aboriginal communities is very severe but not as severe as what happens in our aboriginal communities. Should the leaders of our aboriginal communities be invited to participate in such an active dialogue?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This certainly has no reflection on yourself, but I cannot help noticing that in debates of this nature, throughout the time that I have been in this House, the first person who asks a question or makes a comment generally gets four to five minutes and the second person gets thirty seconds. Thus, the second person, or possibly the third, does not get an opportunity to reflect upon what they may want to say or the reaction to it.

I am wondering if it is at all possible for that to be a little more balanced, where the first person could have a minute or two and then the second person could have a minute or two.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Conservative Party for his support for the NDP motion.

If he believes that NAFTA protects bulk water shipments and Canada's sovereign right over water, why does he believe then that the United States, especially the state of California, has launched a $220 million lawsuit against the province of British Columbia? The province has forbidden bulk water tanker shipments.

I refer again to the MMT case in which Canada capitulated and gave $13.5 million U.S. to a foreign national and maintained the gasoline additive MMT, which is a neurotoxin, within our borders. I suspect that the state of California and the companies that are there suspect they may have a legal loophole or a legal avenue in which to approach or sue the Government of Canada.

I want to ensure, from his way of thinking, that they would not have a legal approach and that they are basically blowing hot air.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. member and his colleague from Davenport for whom I have tremendous respect for their work on the environment committee.

He is saying that we do not have to be concerned over the NAFTA when it comes to bulk water shipments or sale of our water. We recently lost a court decision. Actually we did not lose it. In our perspective we caved in to the MMT decision and gave the Ethyl Corporation $13.5 million U.S. We were unable to ban within our borders what is known as the manganese additive in gasoline which is a neurotoxin.

Is he and his party that confident in terms of the current court case in California against the British Columbia government? I am assuming from his projection that they will not be successful in the courts in suing British Columbia or the federal government in their prevention of bulk water shipments from British Columbia.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not once mentioned the aboriginal community in Canada in her speech.

With a motion of this nature, with medical concerns and care for our aboriginal people across the country would the member believe that it should fall under provincial control or under federal control?

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Bloc for bringing this very important debate to the House of Commons where it should be.

If the Bloc member believes the money should be handed over unconditionally so that the province can dictate to itself what it would like to do with that health care money, what about the aboriginal communities in her province?

As we know, aboriginal communities across this country are suffering greater than non-native people when it comes to health care concerns, various diseases and the crises they face. What would her province be able to do to improve the lot of the aboriginal people as compared to other provinces and the rest of the country?

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the Liberal Party talks about partnership and co-operation among the various parties. He should back that up with resources.

He knows that the federal government has taken $2.5 billion out of health care services for the last three years. He now talks about the ability of partnering and co-operation.

What would he have to say about the lack of funds and resources behind his statements?