Peter Stoffer

[RCMP, October 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand today in the House and welcome and thank the great Mr. Curt Wentzell.

Curt Wentzell of Nova Scotia served his RCMP detachment throughout all of Canada for 35 years. On October 7, he reached his 35-year milestone.

He served in Toronto. He served on the musical ride. He served in Newfoundland, and now he serves the great province of Nova Scotia and resides in the beautiful community of Sackville, represented by yours truly, in the riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore.

Mr. Wentzell epitomizes exactly what the RCMP is all about: a proud force serving our country, doing the job that all Canadians want him to do.

At this time I want to thank his beautiful partner, Nadine, for sharing Curt with all of us and with the RCMP. We thank all the members of the RCMP, serving from coast to coast to coast, for the tremendous job they do. We salute Curt and Nadine. We congratulate him on his 35 years of service and may God bless.

[World Autism Awareness Day Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, again it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democrats to lend our support to this important measure introduced by the Senate, Bill S-210, to enact world autism day from a Canadian perspective.

I want to go very briefly into my own personal history on this particular subject at hand. As few years ago, I was walking from my office into the Centre Block and I noticed a man by the Peace Tower flame and he had a sandwich board sign on him saying “Autism in medicare now”.

I will be honest that I was very ignorant about what he was trying to say so I asked him what his concern was. That then developed into a very nice friendship. That person's name is Mr. Andrew Cavachuk. Mr. Cavachuk has done yeoman's work in trying to raise the level of awareness, not just for his own son but for all children across the country who have autism spectrum disorder.

Autism comes in various forms and different ranges, from Asperger syndrome, to flight risks. to non-verbal and so on.

In my travels throughout my own riding, I found a fair number of people who have children who are autistic. One personal friend of mine in Vancouver has two children who are autistic. Anyone who has met children with autism find they are some of the most beautiful, kind, wonderful and the most loving children one could ever possibly meet. What their families require is support. They need support from the federal government.

This is why we moved our own national autism day. We presented a bill before the House of Commons which has not come up for debate in terms of enshrining that autism is in the medicare system. We do not want the federal government to tell the provinces what to do.We know that the delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility. However, what we have said over and over again is that there is no reason why the provinces need to reinvent the wheel.

That is why we have asked repeatedly for a national autism strategy in Canada. We know there is a patchwork quilt of efforts across the country. In Nova Scotia, a handful of children get assistance, whereas in Alberta I believe the family can receive assistance from the government for children up to 18 years of age.

No matter where someone lives in the country, children who have autism should be able to receive the care, treatment and support they need right across the country.

I am sure some members remember a few years ago the very emotional press conference in Toronto where a couple of people had to make the decision to leave Ontario, their birthplace and the place where they raised their children, because their child had autism and Alberta could provide better care than the province of Ontario.

As a society, no one should have to live through that. We are a much better society than that.

What we have asked the federal government to do is to coordinate a strategy--I know the Bloc does not like hearing this word--a national strategy. What we would like to do is bring the health ministers and the experts together, along with the federal government and devise a strategy so that every province, territory and first nations reserves can have the expertise and the information at their hands to develop the support systems to assist these families and their children.

Autism was first described to me by a young boy named Josh Bortolotti who is from Ottawa. For those of us who have known Josh for a long time, people should watch out for this young man because one day he could be the prime minister of this country. His sister has autism and he made it his personal life's crusade, when he was 12 years old, to fight and to stand up for his sister because she could not do it herself. Josh Bortolotti is a tremendously fine young man. Every year he asks us for pledges for his cause to raise funds for autism.

If young children like this can show us in the House of Commons the leadership that is required, then my hat is off to Josh Bortolotti, his family and especially his sister because I know one day she will get the help that she needs.

It is not just for the children. It is also for the parents. Many parents do not understand the concerns of autism. They do not understand what their children are going through until sometimes it is too late.

It was described to me that autism is like a puzzle. This is why applied behaviour analysis and IBI treatment are so very important, to get these children the minute that they are diagnosed and to work with them through repetition over and over again to develop their brains so that they can lead productive lives.

When we had press conferences a few years ago, we heard from specialists from Quebec that if a child is diagnosed at age two with autism, and that child and the family are worked with intensively for four years then that child can go to a regular school without any teaching assistance at all. That is the kind of investment in these children that we need. The unfortunate part is we do not believe that the provinces will ever have enough money to do this on their own. This is why we think it is imperative that the national government work with the provinces, territories and first nations reserves to ensure that we do not reinvent the wheel, to ensure that no matter where people live in this country, children and families with autism can get the help they deserve and most importantly, get the support they have.

At last count, I understand, there are close to 400,000 people in this country who have some form of autism and that number is rising rapidly. I will never forget the time Hillary Clinton, now a senator in the United States, offered a $200 million aid package for various research centres, for various states and various schools in this regard, because the national government of the United States understands that this is a very serious issue. It put a lot of federal money into this issue in order to assist families and to assist researchers in developing, hopefully one day, a complete understanding of what causes autism and to see how we can mitigate it in the future.

While we are working toward that, the people with autism in Canada need to know. I spoke to the hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform who used to be the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health. We all worked together collaboratively a couple of years ago to bring a motion forward in the House which was adopted by all of us on that type of strategy. Unfortunately, over two years later we are still talking about it. We do not have a national strategy.

We are asking once again, with great respect to the government, because we know that government members have people in their constituencies who have this concern, and we know members of the government and the Conservative Party care about this issue as much as anyone on this side does. I ask if we can work in collaboration, if the House can really work together as it has done for other items over the years, such as the veterans' charter, to form and develop a national strategy for the development and treatment of autism, to help those children and their families. Then world autism day will be more than just a symbolic gesture or a date on the calendar. It will actually give these people hope, and hope is what they strive for. This is what keeps them going every day.

I have had the pleasure of meeting many children with autism. I have worked with organizations like FEAT of B.C. which is Families for Early Autism Treatment. I have worked with Mr. Cavachuk, Laurel Gibbons and people in my province of Nova Scotia who ask that autism be part of the national medicare package. But while we are working toward that goal, we need to make it loud and clear to these people that they have the full support of not only the Senate but also the House of Commons so that when world autism day becomes a reality, not only can we bring awareness of this issue to our country and the rest of the world, but maybe we could assist those researchers, those practitioners, and those families, and most importantly, give those people a hand up so they can lead productive lives.

If we do that, it will be a great day in the House of Commons and a great day for all Canadians. I say God bless to all the children with autism and to their families, and may the bill pass fairly quickly.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in short, he is absolutely correct.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, if a union member in Colombia had a fishing pole, he would not be fishing for very long. He would probably be murdered by somebody.

We have no aversion to CIDA helping Colombia or any other country that requires our help.

A letter was written by someone from Common Frontiers, who was very angry over the member's viewpoint of what was going on in Colombia. If my hon. colleague, from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia, honestly believes this is the proper way to go, then why are environmental, human rights and labour rights not enshrined in the main text of the body? Why must these things always be in the side deals? Those members refuse to answer that question.

It is quite telling as to why they refuse to answer that one very critical question to help those people on the bottom rung of the ladder in Colombia and around the world.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, he just said it. He proved my point. He said that the issues of the environment and human rights were in a side agreement.

My question for my hon. colleague from the South Shore of Nova Scotia, which by the way is a beautiful area of the country, is this. Why are the side agreements not in the main text of the agreement? Why do they have to be in a side deal? If they are so important, why are they not in the main text?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to reconfirm that the Canada-Colombia free trade deal was signed on November 21, 2008, right smack in the middle of the international trade committee dealing with this effort. I have to ask the government this. Why would it have the committee undertake a study of this deal and, while doing its work and before the reports can be tabled, sign the deal anyway?

What about the Conservative members on that committee? Are they pawns in a game? They should do whatever they are told and not worry about things. “Pretend you are wasting all this taxpayer money on studies, witnesses and reviews, don't worry we're not going to listen to anything you say anyway because we're going ahead and signing it”.

This is the problem with the Conservative government. It promised us accountability and transparency. What did we get? An incredible number of Conservative bag people, Tory hacks and political contributions. This is its accountability review. “If you donate to the Conservative Party, you too can be a judge in Canada”. This is the type of system we want to tell the Colombians about, that they should follow our lead, that corruption begins at the highest places, even in our Canadian democracy?

Getting back to the free trade deal, we firmly believe these deals should be based on fairness, equality, the rights of workers, the rights of people and, most important, the environmental standards for both countries. If these deals were predicated upon those items, then we would probably be very supportive. However, we get backhanded deals, we get told all kinds of wonderful things by the government, “Don't worry, be happy”. Bobby McFerrin sang that song years ago and won a Grammy for it, but the Conservatives would never win a Grammy for that, I can assure everyone.

They Conservatives are deliberately misleading the House and Canadians when they make these deals without fair and proper observation by the committees and a thorough analysis and debate by the House. This is why we are here.

I remember when the Conservatives were on this side of House, they stood on their chairs like banshees and screamed and yelled every time the Liberals tried to pull something like this. It is quite amazing to know that the Liberals are very supportive of this. They are in the pockets of the Conservatives on this deal.

At the end of the day, only time will tell if these trade deals are successful. I can guarantee one thing. We have seen other deals that Canada has made in other areas of the world and the workers are still no better off. The environment is getting worse and the debts and deficits of those countries are rising.

Where is the proof that these deals actually succeed in the long term and who do they benefit? Who are the main beneficiaries of these deals? Who is pushing the government so hard to get these deals signed so fast with a country like Colombia?

As my hon. colleague from Prince George said earlier, is it not our responsibility to help them, to work with them, to assist them with worker stability and the environment? Absolutely, but we do not need a trade deal to do that. We can send a lot of people there to assist them in moving forward in a more democratic manner. This is why this deal should not be ratified.

The bill should be killed. I am glad to see the Bloc Québécois and the NDP siding on this very important issue.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, with great respect to the member from the Conservative side, I was right in the middle of a speech. If truth were an island, you would be uninhabited right now. Try a little honesty in the House next time. I—

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the party, contrary to this particular aspect of what the Conservative government is doing. I consider the Conservative government to be so desperate to sign a trade deal with literally anybody, that it seeks one with Colombia. It wants to be like the big boys out there and say that it can play too.

I first want to put on the record that the NDP is not against trade deals. However, we would like to see deals that are fair trade deals, not trade deals that upset the environment and the workers' rights. Everyone knows that Colombia has one of the worst workers' rights records in the world. Everyone knows that a unionist in Colombia does not have a very long shelf life, as they say. The reality is that the paramilitary, with the backing of the government and others, has supported basically the riddance of some union members and other people on the left who wish to speak up for social rights, justice and the environment.

What does the government do? It seeks out friendships and trade deals with countries of this nature on the premise that we might be able to improve things and may be able to improve their situation. How has that worked for thousands upon thousands of workers in Mexico right now? Do members remember when NAFTA came along? All tides were going to rise up and the workers of Mexico were going to have the same quality and standard of life that we have in Canada.

That has not happened, and do members know why? The control is lost to governments and is turned to multinational corporations. That is what these deals are all about.

The fact is we, in the NDP, and others, and I assume the Bloc as well, are opposed to these deals because they completely ignore the human rights element and environmental aspects in Colombia. All they do is make these particular profits and motivations for trade paramount and everything else secondary. It is lust like the free trade deal and NAFTA. When we asked about labour rights and about environmental rights, what happened? They were put in a side deal, to be talked about later.

We in the NDP have been asking over and over if the government is serious about human rights and environmental rights in Colombia. Those rights should have been put into the main body of the text. The first things that should have been negotiated were human rights, workers' rights and the environmental rights and then we talk about the economy of scale and the opportunity for companies to trade back and forth and make a profit, which they should be able to do. However, we cannot separate them and put one in a side deal.

It is funny that we never hear about the economic aspects of these big resource companies being put in a side deal. They are always in the main body of the text and workers and the environment are always on the side, to be talked about later. That is not fair and it is certainly not right.

What we have said very clearly about any trade deal is that if the premise of the trade deal is to create an economy for both sides to lift up workers and their communities, then must be equal on both sides. It cannot just be a one-way street, which is what is happening here.

We know the committee on international trade was dealing with this but the government circumvents the work of the committee and goes ahead anyway. Why would the government ask a committee made up of all parliamentarians to study this particular aspect and then go ahead and proceed with it anyway? The government is circumventing its own members of Parliament. As Garth Turner once said, “The sheeples won't say anything. They're afraid that their committee chairs or something else may be taken away from them”.

The reality is that if a committee has been tasked to look into an agreement or into a particular legislation, the government should never be signing on until that work is done, a report is tabled in the House and a thorough review and analysis has done by all parliamentarians, instead of the government just riding roughshod ahead superceding Parliament's wishes in this particular regard.

I cannot say this enough. If our children looked to this Parliament, they would see a massive debt and deficit that we are leaving for them. We are leaving them an environment that, by all standards, is worsening on a daily basis. Now we have no idea if our children will have the security of long term employment that we ourselves had. This is the legacy we are leaving our children.

What does the present government do and what did the previous government do? They both rushed out to make these trade deals thinking that if we just keep trading with countries like Colombia everything will be better. That is simply not true.

For those of us who have toured Mexico, we know that a lot of people in Mexico are not better off by NAFTA. There is no question that some communities have done better, but most Mexican workers are not that much better off than they were before. We were promised that the workers in Mexico would have similar rights to our workers in Canada, but when the trade deal was signed, thousands of Canadians lost their jobs and a lot of businesses left Canada to go elsewhere.

We are still in debt and have a massive deficit, and what does the government do? It searches out countries like Colombia with a terrible human rights record and bad environmental standards and we want to trade with that country. For the life of me, I do not understand why the--

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the other day, at the economic club dinner at the Chateau Laurier, four-star General Wesley Clark was there and was asked a question on Afghanistan. He said basically two things.

First, he said that anyone who believes we are not in Afghanistan or Iraq for energy security is sadly mistaken. I am paraphrasing now. That is not exactly what he said. However, he indicated one of the major reasons we were there was for energy security.

Second, he said that if we do not deal with Pakistan, we cannot deal with an Afghanistan.

When I spoke with him on a more private level, he indicated he meant to elaborate more on the region, not just on Pakistan.

As my colleague from Toronto Centre has said, the reality is there are many countries in that region that need to be taken into the dialogue.

And, yes, the hon. member for Toronto Centre is absolutely correct. Canada will have some role to play in Afghanistan. The question is this House and this country have to decide in a thoughtful manner what that role should be after 2011.

My question for the hon. member is, does he think that General Wesley Clark was correct in his summation on energy security of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also, I would like to give him an opportunity to elaborate more on what Canada's role, not just with Pakistan but with the other countries in the region, should be, as he says, in going forward on this very serious issue.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member for Kings—Hants seems to be the biggest supporter in this House for this trade deal with Colombia, basically under any and all circumstances.

However, he has made previous comments to this House and there is a particular individual with common frontiers who is quite outraged by the comments of the member for Kings—Hants because of his sort of analysis of the situation in Colombia.

I would just like my hon. colleague from Welland to just highlight a few of the concerns that the gentleman in question has raised.