Peter Stoffer

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Brandon—Souris. To blame the budget is simply nonsense.

I would love to ask the government, where did the Prime Minister allocate $100 million for two jets? I would love to see the budget item on that one.

One of the problems veterans and their families have is the fact that veterans affairs is a subcommittee. Many veterans groups are saying it is almost like they are being treated differently than, say, a full committee. What happens of course is that members on this side of the House are rushing from committee to committee.

Would he consider the possibility, in the next Parliament, that veterans affairs become a full committee? RCMP officers are now falling under the veterans' benefits. We have a tremendous number of people and their families under the guise of veterans affairs and it definitely warrants the attention of a full committee.

Would he not agree, or at least agree to look into something of that nature for the very near future, so that veterans and their families could get the respect and attention that they deserve?

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the problem I perceive is that veterans affairs is actually a subcommittee of the defence and veterans affairs committee.

The member knows very well that members, especially those from the smaller opposition parties, rush back and forth trying to attend the various committees. When we speak veterans and their families many of them ask why veterans affairs is a subcommittee. It gives it a lesser meaning than a full committee.

Would the member support having the veterans affairs committee become a full standing committee as other committees are in the House of Commons in order to give the veterans and their families the respect that they deserve?

[Agriculture, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, woodlot owners in the Halifax regional municipality have been suffering for over three years because of the quarantine placed on them by the CFIA on the brown spruce longhorned beetle. Now after hurricane Juan, thousands of these trees must be commercially harvested immediately to have any viability at all when it comes to economics for those woodlot owners.

My question for the minister responsible for the CFIA is this. Will he now work with the province to designate a mill that can handle the quarantined lumber so these woodlot owners can gain some economic viability from all the trees that have been blown down?

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's request for the minister to resign, as upset as I am and as upset as people like Cliff Chadderton and many others are over the minister's stalling tactics on trying to get a change in the legislation, the member knows very well that if the minister resigned today, there would not be a new minister probably until April to get the problem solved because of the change of leadership within the Liberal party. That will delay the proceedings even longer which would delay our fight.

I commend the member for her speech with regard to the widows. I am just as upset as she is over this, but if the minister resigned today, that would delay the proceedings even longer. As upset as the member is, and rightly so, would she not think that it would be just as good for all of us, including those Liberals on the backbench who support the changes to this, to keep pushing the minister as hard as we can on behalf of the widows to get this done? Would she think that it could be a better approach to this ongoing discussion?

I agree with the member's anger about this. She is justified. The fact is there is no reason this cannot be done. There is absolutely no reason these widows cannot be looked after.

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, will he please look at changing the regulations so that indeed every single widow, on, or before, or after May 12, will be entitled to the benefits they so rightfully deserve?

The reason we say that is that members of the military sign up for the ultimate liability. We as members of Parliament have the ultimate responsibility to see that their needs and their families' needs are met. The government should not be dicking around with things back and forth and little regulatory frameworks. If we can give ourselves a raise in two hours, we can look after the widows.

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let us just try a different tack on this one.

I do not think there is an issue that can unify more parliamentarians than that of a widow grieving over the loss of her husband. The reality is that this widow will soon be into abject poverty unless the government and that particular minister do something.

We understand there are regulatory frameworks that need to be worked out. We understand there are fiscal concerns to be worked out, but all we are really asking is, will the minister get his department together and change the regulations?

You have the power to do this, Mr. Minister. You can easily do it. If there is a political will to do it, you can do it. If we can change the boundaries--

[Criminal Code, October 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, with tongue in cheek I say to the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect and who sits on the same committee as I, that he has heard almost every organization, which appeared before our committee on the Coast Guard, very clearly say that the Coast Guard was in an absolute mess. It does not matter how one looks at it, the Coast Guard is in serious trouble. However that is an argument for another day.

The member said that it was up to the defence department to guard some of the largest coastlines in the world, which are the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, as well as our Great Lakes system. I do not think too many frigates are patrolling the Great Lakes at this time.

I do have a very simple and perhaps facetious question. If the member says that it is up to the defence department to guard our coastlines, why the drastic cuts to the Aurora flights that used to patrol the Arctic? Could he tell us how many frigates or patrol vessels are patrolling the waters of Canada right now, not only in defence but in actions of prevention of pollution, overfishing, drug interdiction or illegal immigrants?

If he says that it is up to the defence department to guard our coastlines, exactly how many vessels are actively patrolling our waters at this time, or within the week, and giving blanket coverage--

[Criminal Code, October 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I gives me great pleasure to again raise one of my pet concerns, the issue of the Coast Guard.

The other day in the House I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on behalf of all Canadians, a question which I thought was very simple.

When the commissioner of the Coast Guard, John Adams, appeared before the fisheries committee hearings--and the hon. parliamentary secretary was there to hear his comments--the committee asked Mr. Adams if the mandate of the Coast Guard was to guard the coasts. Mr. Adams' answer was, no, that was not its mandate.

Since we have three very large ocean coastlines and a large Great Lakes water system, I am thinking, very nervously, that if it is not the Coast Guard's responsibility to guard the coastlines, then who does it.

We have had indications that it is the responsibility of the RCMP and defence. Therefore we went to the RCMP and the defence department. The RCMP in Windsor said that it did not have the resources or manpower to do the Great Lakes protection at all. We then went to officials at DND and they told us that they did not have the resources or manpower to patrol our three oceans, even on an irregular basis.

It makes us think that it is no wonder the United States would be nervous about us in terms of a security risk when ships of any size can come on to our coastline completely undetected.

If the House does not believe that to be true, last year we had two incidents just outside Halifax harbour, including one at Chebucto Head where a freighter landed on shore. We did not know about it until authorities went to see it. Nobody was on board and the crew was caught hitchhiking down the road. How does a freighter land on the shore right next to Halifax harbour, with a population of almost 380,000 people? One has to wonder who is guarding our coastline.

We have a tremendous problem in terms of environmental spills. In fact, the commissioner of the Coast Guard said that 75% to about 80% of all spills in Atlantic Canada are mystery spills. Officials have no idea where the pollution comes from and yet it is destroying our marine life and aquatic species that many people rely on for their economic opportunities.

It begs the question, who exactly is providing security for our coastlines?

I will say that a company called Provincial Airlines, which operates out of Newfoundland but has offices in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, does some surveillance on contract but even it has a contract with the government that clearly says that it does not have the resources or manpower to do everything it would love to do for the government.

Once again, on behalf of all Canadians who think the Coast Guard's role is to guard the coast, I will ask the question. If it is not the mandate of the Coast Guard to guard our coasts then who exactly is in charge of protecting our Great Lakes system and the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Oceans?

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party and also those provincial New Democratic Parties across Canada that have paid active attention to the concern of our lighthouses within this country.

First, I want to thank Senator Carney and Senator Forrestall for their initiative through the Senate in order to bring the bill to this place. I believe both are genuinely interested in what goes on with our coastal communities and lighthouses, and they should be thanked for their hard work in this regard.

People who come from Nova Scotia know the value of our lighthouses. We know how disappointed we were when they went from man light stations to automatic stations. Of course we were not in the House at that time, but if we had been, we would have put up a big fight for them, similar to our fight now to preserve the heritage lighthouses throughout the country.

Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roméo LeBlanc from northern New Brunswick, was a very fine man in the House of Commons. His son now sits in the House. Mr. LeBlanc's picture hangs in the hallways of the Senate. When we look at the picture, what do we see? A very beautiful picture of Roméo LeBlanc looking out his office window. What is he looking at? A lighthouse.

It is quite ironic that the picture of one of the best speakers this House has ever had and a fine governor general would portray a very significant aspect of our culture. I encourage everyone who has the opportunity to go see the picture. It rolls into what this bill is all about, and that is the preservation of the historical and cultural aspects of lighthouses.

I would also like to give credit to the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society. The folks involved with that society do a fabulous job of maintaining, protecting and preserving the integrity of lighthouses that have been abandoned or moved more or less to the cultural sector because DFO, through the government, has dissolved itself of that.

I would also like to give very special credit to a Mr. Dave Molloy, formerly of Newfoundland and Labrador, who wrote a fabulous book back in 1994 called The First Landfall . The book details the historical and cultural aspects of a particular number of lighthouses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I have a copy of the book at home and I find it an exquisite example of what people can do when they do their research.

I spoke to Mr. Molloy. For over four years, he did research on his book. The book exemplifies the deep meaning and deep rooted historical aspect of what these lighthouses mean to people. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have ever had the opportunity to travel throughout the country, especially to our coastlines, to witness these lighthouses and to see the ruggedness of the areas in which they are. They are strikingly beautiful.

I also have had the opportunity to live in British Columbia. I have travelled up and down the coast and have seen many of the lighthouses. Senator Carney actually referred to them in our Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans yesterday.

I believe all members of Parliament can and should support this bill. It is extremely important to the integral history of our country, as well as to future mariners. Once they are gone, we cannot get them back. That is really the essence of it.

I want to let everyone know that we support the bill without reservation. We know the bill can be stronger. It is quite vague, but it is vague in the sense of encouraging the government to adopt it. We look forward to improving aspects of the bill so my grandchildren can visit these places and see the same lighthouses that my forefathers saw and that I have seen.

[Coast Guard, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week at our fisheries committee the commissioner of the Coast Guard indicated to our committee that it is not the mandate of the Coast Guard to guard the coast. My question quite simply to the government is this: Who is guarding our three oceans and our Great Lakes waters at this time?