Peter Stoffer

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, since the hon. member is splitting his time with my colleague from Nova Scotia, maybe he would be honoured to answer the question.

[Privilege, March 8th, 2005]

My comments exactly, Mr. Speaker.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for West Nova for his efforts in getting the finances for the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in Cornwallis. That is a very important centre and I want to congratulate him on his efforts in securing that funding.

I notice that when Liberals do not want to talk about something, we only hear what they want to talk about. One of the big concerns is the tax breaks that the Liberals have given. The corporations in Canada reported an 18.8% profit for 2004. Who gets the big tax break? The corporations do, of 2%. The insurance and banking industries made record profits, and I would say on the backs of Canadian consumers. What do seniors and families in Nova Scotia get? For a long time we have been asking for the removal of the GST from home heating essentials. Could we move toward that and give every family in the country a fair tax break on that? The answer is no.

The member talked about the Liberal leader of Nova Scotia supporting the offshore oil accord. I remind him of Francis MacKenzie's comments when he initially said, “Take the $640 million and run with it”. He was not that supportive of the offshore deal. He had a quick conversion when he realized that the deal was coming down the pike, for which we are very happy.

As a former minister of fisheries and oceans, does the member not believe that the money for the Coast Guard for capitalization should be used to build the ships right here in Canada?

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from British Columbia but the question asked by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois was quite simple. If she is dead set against the budget and she finds a million things wrong with it, will she and her party, all 99 of them, show up tomorrow and vote against the budget?

She talked about corporate taxes being too high. It is interesting to note that the insurance companies reported record profits under the current tax system. The banks will be reporting record profits under the current tax system. However, instead of giving, for example, a tax break to all Canadians and removing the GST off home heating essentials, that tax break will be given directly to the corporations which will make even more money.

She is right when she says that Canadians are suffering under taxes but why not give a proper tax break to all Canadians by removing the GST from home heating essentials? If she is so dead set against the budget, will she and her party en masse vote against the budget tomorrow?

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is being completely honest with this Parliament, he will understand that most of the military budget is scheduled for four or five years from now. The defence department has been asked to give $178 million back this year and $258 million the following year. That represents a drawback of $436 million, which almost equals the same amount that the government is pledging to it this year.

If the Liberals were to be completely honest with Canadians and the men and women of our military, they would say they would be getting x number of dollars, but it would be five years down the road, and in the meantime they have to give back x number of dollars as well.

My question is with respect to the Coast Guard funding of $275 million over a period of time to replace our Coast Guard vessels. There is a desperate need in this country to replace some of our military vessels, our ferry fleet, our laker fleet, and just as important, our Coast Guard fleet. We were glad to see the government taking some small step toward improving that, but my fear is that the government will purchase those ships from other countries thus using taxpayers' dollars to assist those other countries.

We are asking the government to commit to its 2001 report called “Breaking Through: Canadian Shipbuilding Industry” and prepare a shipbuilding policy for Canada so that taxpayers' dollars would go toward assisting Canadian shipyards and workers. The government did this for the auto industry and the aerospace sector.

Will the member commit his government to investing in and ensuring that the ships that are required by our Coast Guard will definitely be built in Canada?

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my colleague comes from the great province of Manitoba which is showing leadership in the area of the environment. Manitoba shows leadership in many other areas, but when it comes to the environment, Gary Doer and the NDP government of Manitoba show great leadership.

Like Quebec has done on day care, Manitoba has done on the environment. What they both have is leadership on a particular file. If the Liberals do not have a plan and have no ideas, all they have to do is pick up the phone and call Gary Doer. I am sure he would have lunch with them, in a beautiful Winnipeg restaurant, and would be able to straighten it out for them.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, with the great respect I have for the hon. member, I am amazed that was able to say all that with a straight face. The Liberal strategy on the auto sector is absolutely an oxymoron, if I ever heard one. It is incredible.

I have a simple question for him. We know from history that every time the automobile sector is asked to do something voluntarily it fights it tooth and nail. It fought tooth and nail against the air bags. It fought tooth and nail against seat belts. Anything that meant added costs, it did not want it. Now the automobile sector is a proud proponent of these.

The technology exists. We have hybrid cars, we have smart cars, we have the industry and we have the will. We just need leadership from the government to make it happen. The member says that he wants to be very clear. That is what we want. We want a clear environment, no smog, so we can all breathe free and easy in the years to come.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

That is absolutely correct, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, who did not want to stick around to hear that.

We are talking about a very serious issue of mandatory regulations on auto emissions. We have said it should be 25%. It could probably be a lot higher, but we have said it should be 25%. We did not put a date on it because we want the government to make it mandatory and tell the industry what the target is and ask industry when conceivably it can be done and ask industry what it needs in order to do it. That is the whole essence of the motion.

We encourage the Conservatives to vote for the motion. If they are against the Liberals on all the other arguments, that is fine, but they should vote with us on this one. They should show once and for all that they truly are against the Liberals on this one. The reality is that their own environment critic indicated support for mandatory controls. He said it twice. Are they now saying that the Conservative Party's environment critic was wrong prior to the election? Was it an election ploy maybe? The fact is he said it not once, but twice. We only assume that somebody in the shadow cabinet would be able to speak clearly on whether something is mandatory or voluntary.

When it comes to the government, we would not have to have this debate today if the Liberals themselves, when they became the government in 1993, realized the escalating problem of air pollution and smog in this country. There is no excuse in the world for 12 years of dithering on this file and many other files. The reality is that we have been promised and assured that the health of Canadians is a number one priority.

The other day my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona said very clearly that emissions have raised by 20% in this country. They are not 20% lower. That is disastrous. Our children are breathing in this stuff. They are getting sicker because of it. Because of this health care costs are increasing and increasing. We can either pay now and do the right thing and bring in mandatory 25% emission reductions, or we can dither and do nothing and spend all that extra money on funerals, on medical problems and everything else that happens when we do not pay attention to our natural environment.

This particular initiative has great support from many environment groups throughout the country. We know that many within labour support this initiative as well.

We are asking the government for leadership on this file. We are asking that our colleagues in the government and our other colleagues in the House support this motion. If we leave anything for our children, it should be cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner planet for many years to come.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley very much for bringing forward today's motion, which is very important not only for today's society but for our children's future.

I keep hearing from other sides of the House about the cost. What is the cost of all of this? The cost right now is 16,000 lives in this country every year. The cost is hundreds of millions of dollars in medical treatments for people with asthma, breathing problems and lung problems. There are two words that come to mind which as a kid growing up I had never heard of. One is Pulmicort and the other is Symbicort. I use Symbicort now. It is a puffer, an inhaler used by people with bronchial or asthmatic problems. My daughter has one as well.

I do not recollect seeing very many children with heavy breathing problems when I was attending school. There may have been one or two in the whole school with asthma and who required specific medical attention, but it was very rare. Many children now have breathing problems. Today's motion will not cure it all, but it will go a long way in clearing the air for many generations down the road.

The cost of not doing something is death. That is what will happen if we sit idle in the House and expel more hot air at each other, if we sit on our hands and say we cannot do anything because of all of these other factors. The debate is over now. It is time we took the bull by the horns and worked with everyone to get this thing done.

I was very pleased to attend a conference which the hon. member for Red Deer held a few months ago with a congresswoman from California. She told us how she had fought for years in the halls of the California legislature in order to get mandatory legislation on car emissions in that state to be the best and strictest in North America. Eventually she won her argument.

She came to Canada and the hon. member for Red Deer, a member of the official opposition, invited us to a presentation she was making. I had assumed by that invitation to see her that quite possibly the hon. member for Red Deer was interested in what she was saying, having no idea that members of his own party would say that what she was saying really had no merit at all. If that woman could pursue that and have the state of California accept the toughest emission controls in North America, we in Canada should be able to follow suit fairly quickly.

I am very proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party which has worked with labour, industry and environmental groups to develop a green car strategy, and which we released prior to the last election. It is a successful program. New Democrats had this idea. It is free. The government can take it and run with it. We know it is a success. We know it will create jobs now and in the future. We think this is the way to go.

I am rather concerned about the Conservatives always switching the debate over to the government's lack of responsibility on what it has done on things like Kyoto. I want to remind the Conservatives that everything they were against before, they now seem to support. In the flag debate 40 years ago, the Conservatives voted against the new flag. They voted against medicare. They vote against everything that members in the NDP have pushed for and which Canadians wish to have.

Tommy Douglas was hung in effigy when he brought in medicare in Saskatchewan. He has been inducted into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame. When Ed Schreyer brought public auto insurance to Manitoba, people screamed and yelled and said that it could not be done, that it was against their rights. Now Manitobans love public auto insurance.

Today in debate the Conservatives said that they were concerned about day care, that they did not like public day care and that the money should be given to the parents. They are right in that regard. Parents should have more money in order to make the choices they want. Then they said that $5 billion was not enough for day care. We in the NDP are really stymied as to exactly where they stand.

If and when day care gets in, which cannot happen fast enough for members of the NDP, I can guarantee that 20 years from now, Conservatives, if there are any left in this land, will stand up and defend day care. I can just see it again.

There is one other thing. The Conservatives talk about a free vote on the issue of same sex marriage. They blame the Liberals for not allowing a free vote for members of cabinet. I remind them that Mr. Mulroney, during the abortion debate, ordered his cabinet to vote a certain way and allowed the backbenchers to vote freely. It is amazing how quickly the Conservatives can forget their own history and move on to other issues.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wish the hon. member good luck in getting the answers to the questions for which she has so eloquently asked. As the member knows, one of the concerns we have with the government is when takes departments apart and tries to put them back together. One example is our Coast Guard.

In 1995 our Coast Guard was part of Transport Canada. Under a program review, it was then shifted over to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which was a disaster. If she speaks to her colleague sitting next to her she will know that. He knows what an unmitigated disaster the Coast Guard was under fisheries and oceans.

The Coast Guard is a stand-alone agency now, but there is talk that it may go into the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio.

All this discussion costs taxpayers a great deal of money, plus it worries the employees of these departments. It also sends out a signal to our allies that we really do not know what we are doing in that regard.

My question for the member is on the so-called amalgamation of foreign affairs and international trade. If she ever gets the answers to her questions, I would love to hear them.

Once of the confusions we have is this. We signed a treaty banning landmines. We supported the ratification to get rid of landmines in the world. Yet at the same time we allowed our CPP investments to be invested on the open stock markets. Those stock markets invest in companies that make landmines.

Does the hon. member see any discussions with regard to this problem? When we have an international affairs policy that contradicts the foreign affairs policy or the trade policy, what would she do to correct those deficiencies?