Peter Stoffer

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to carry on with this, I encourage the Internet service providers, instead of using veiled threats, to work with all levels of government and the police forces in order to stop and do everything possible to prevent the use of the Internet for child pornography. That is not going to be easy. Nobody said that it would be. The fact is that now that the Internet is here, which is a great service for people around the world to be able communicate with each other, it can also be used in communication for some evil things. As the hon. member for Wild Rose has said and the member from Surrey said before, we must work with the police officials in our country to do everything we can to minimize the impact on our children, not just in this country but in countries around the world.

Will this Parliament or any parliament around the world be able to successfully eradicate child pornography? Probably not, but we should do everything we can in order to ensure that we try, and we should put the adequate resources in there in order to do it.

I know that in certain countries around the world, where they have devastation and poverty beyond our recognition, some parents, unwillingly or just through plain ignorance or severe lack of education, may sell off their children or use their children in this regard. Those children's pictures are shown on the Internet around the world. They do it for money, which shows that we possibly may do a lot of good in this country down the road, but we are going to have to help those people around the world. We will have to educate them. We will have to discourage them and prevent them from using their own children for sexual exploitation in order to put bread on the table.

We have heard of many cases in countries like Pakistan and India where parents will more or less sell off their children to work in weaving rooms or on looms in order for them to gain a bit of money to bring back to the family. A lot of these young children, especially girls, are sold into prostitution, not only in those countries but literally around the world. That is unacceptable, but we have to ask ourselves why they are doing that. I cannot honestly believe, no matter what culture, what ethnicity, what religion or what morality people have, that anyone who bears a child and cares for that child would honestly want to do that. I may be ignorant about that, but for the life of me I just cannot see them wanting to do that. However, when people are desperate and have nothing they resort to drastic measures.

The real problem is with the people who buy those services, the people who use those children and manipulate those families for the sake of the almighty dollar. They use those children, manipulate them like birds in a cage and exploit them, not only in their own countries but around the world through the Internet. This is reprehensible. It does not just happen in Canada; it happens around the world. We have heard just recently of that international bust of people who have done that.

For the life of me, I do not understand why people feel they need to have some sort of enjoyment or fulfillment or release, for lack of a better word, from looking at children in a pornographic way. It boggles the mind. I may not be the greatest practising Christian in the world but I do believe in God and I know that God would not want his flock to do that, so why do people do it? Is a longer jail sentence the answer? Obviously these people must be severely ill or demented. I could use much stronger language, Mr. Speaker, but you would throw me out, so I will not.

I will try to be as courteous and as kind as I can using parliamentary protocol, but it bothers me greatly that even though my own children are safe, along with those of many of my friends, there are probably children in my own riding who are being exploited in this regard and I would be unaware of it.

I speak to policemen on this subject, not on a regular basis, and I know that my former colleague, Mr. Chris Axworthy, did a tremendous amount of work with police associations across the country when they mounted the campaign in 1995-96 in order to facilitate this type of legislation. It is quite amazing that this bill has been on our books for six to eight years and yet the government chose not to take even any aspect of the bill into its legislation. I can assure members that I will be actively working with my colleagues in order to facilitate this type of bill into the legislation, either through moral persuasion, through the debate in the House of Commons, or through committee or public pressure to try to get the government and my opposition colleagues to look at this type of legislation and enact it into the current Bill C-20. If we can honestly do that, I believe we would go a long way in protecting not only our children in this country but children around the world.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity, on behalf of my two daughters, to contribute in this debate, albeit in a small way, and to do what I can to not only push this government but to push all governments and all legislators around the world to do the very best to eradicate, or at the very least severely minimize, child pornography not only in Canada but around the world.

I am sure you were as shocked, Mr. Speaker, as I and many others were when we heard about the international bust on the child pornography ring and how it used the services of the Internet to exploit fantasies and create what must have been horrible nightmares for those young, unwilling and unsuspecting children.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a private member's bill which was first introduced in the House years ago by the then member of Parliament for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Mr. Chris Axworthy. For a while he was the attorney general and justice minister of Saskatchewan but he stepped down from that post. He and various police associations across the country were very supportive of the bill he introduced at that time. Basically the bill, which is now under Bill C-234, is an act to prevent the use of the Internet to distribute pornographic material involving children.

Without going into the bill word for word, I would like to read the summary of the bill and put it on record for all those who are listening:

This enactment provides for the licensing of Internet service providers by the C.R.T.C. on conditions to be set by the Minister of Industry by regulation. It also requires service providers' co-operation to minimize the use of the Internet for the publication or proliferation of child pornography or the facilitation of a sex offence involving a child.

Anyone who uses the Internet to facilitate any of the specified sex offences involving children is guilty of an offence.

Internet service providers may be required to block access to identified portions of the Internet that carry child pornography.

The Minister is authorized to make agreements with provinces to assist in achieving the purposes of the Act. Special powers under search warrants may be prescribed by the Minister to facilitate electronic searches.

In my wildest dreams I do not understand why any legislator in this country, through municipal, provincial or federal obligations, would be against that. However I have had actual Internet service providers call me and condemn me for it. They said that if a bill like this ever saw the light of day they would do everything they could to defeat me in the next election. I say to those Internet service providers, “Bring it on”. They should come to the riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore in Nova Scotia and tell the people and the children there that they will not live up to their obligations to do everything they can--

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Wild Rose for his passionate debate on behalf of the security and safety of our children, but I would like to ask him a question.

I have a bill that has been around for almost six years. It was first introduced by the former minister of justice and attorney general of Saskatchewan, Mr. Chris Axworthy, when he was a member of parliament. The bill basically talks about child pornography on the Internet.

I want to ask him about one simple aspect of the bill which is fairly straightforward. The bill would ensure that Internet service providers, the people who provide the services, be required to block access to identified portions of the Internet that may carry child pornography. It would also put the onus on the provider of Internet services to ensure that child pornography did not get on their sites.

Does the hon. member agree with that comment or could he elaborate a bit more? I agree with him. We must do all that we can to protect our children.

[Social Programs, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of caregivers are struggling under the choices they must make between caring for loved ones under palliative care or end of life situation, and having to leave their place of work to provide that type of care.

I would like to ask the human resources minister, being the Christmas season, can she assure that these thousands of caregivers and their families will see some kind of federal program early in the new year to alleviate the financial stress of these caregivers?

On behalf of all of us in the NDP I want to wish the minister a happy Christmas and to ensure that this program--

[Canada Pension Plan, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on this debate. One of the biggest concerns the New Democrats have had, and my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle has been mentioning it for quite some time, is the fact that the entire Canada Pension Plan Investment Board exists without an ethical screen.

Whether the Alliance has an amendment or whether the Liberals want to fool around and sort of debate that issue a bit longer, the reality is that in many instances we will be using pension dollars to the detriment of Canadian society. One of the items I brought up before, and that I will bring up again and again, is a question I asked at the committee hearing we had less than a couple of weeks ago. I asked Mr. MacNaughton, the head of the pension board, if right now we are using Canada pension investment dollars from Canadians across the country to invest in companies such as tobacco companies. Without hesitation, he said yes. At the same time the federal government invests millions of dollars to try to get Canadians to stop smoking.

I know that the government is saying it should be an arm's length board, which eventually means out of reach, but that is what it is, and the government is saying the board should be able to invest the funds as it sees fit being that it is a board of eminent people who have great experience in investing large amounts of money throughout the country and internationally. No one is going to argue their individual or probably collective successes, but the Government of Canada and Canadian parliamentarians do have an obligation in regard to the health and safety of Canadians. The reality is that there should have been an ethical screen at the pension board to ensure that our dollars do not go to the detriment of the health of Canadians. For the life of me, I cannot see why anybody would argue the facts on why we are investing pension dollars in tobacco companies.

There is another concern we have. Pension dollars are from employees and employers. What happens? With the 30% investment rule, the pension board can be investing in companies in the United States, for example, that could conceivably manufacture, sell and create landmines. We do not know, because there is no ethical screen. The fact is that this country signed the landmine treaty to abolish and get rid of landmines throughout the world. We were very strong on that. The former foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said that himself, but yet our pension dollars may very well be invested in companies in the United States that manufacture landmines, or anything else for that matter. It could be nuclear weaponry. We simply do not know.

If these companies are publicly traded companies or a privately traded companies, if that is the correct terminology, on the various stock exchanges around the world, the pension board can invest in those funds. That is what makes us nervous. We do not believe that the pension dollars of Canadians should be going into those types of companies. That is why we demanded and insisted upon an ethical screen. Unfortunately we cannot support this type of legislation until that type of screen is put in place.

There is another thing that just boggles the mind here. With the 30% foreign investment rule, the reality is that the pension board can be investing in companies that are in direct competition with Canadian companies. One wonders what we are doing. Pension dollars should be going to benefit Canadian companies and the Canadian public at large. We should not be investing in companies that compete directly with our own. That inadvertently is what is happening. We think that should change.

We think that Canadians by and large want a pension plan that will be there when they need it. We think there are alternative methods, such as labour venture funds and environmental funds et cetera, that would actually not only bring a rate of return that is satisfactory to Canadians but also would help build this country by helping help small business, labourers, and the disenfranchised. Our country would become better and stronger by investing funds internally and building up the assets of the country. We think that is the way to do it.

I will repeat it one last time before I sit down. We should not in any way, shape or form be using pension dollars to invest in tobacco companies or companies of that nature that do harm to the Canadian people.

At the same, if we are going to invest millions of taxpayer dollars to get people to stop smoking, then we are being very two-faced. Again, it is hypocrisy at its greatest.

We should ensure that we do not invest that money in companies that, for example, make landmines. Also, we should not invest in companies that compete directly with our Canadian companies. Again that is being two-faced.

If the government brings in those changes, the New Democratic Party will again look at the pension investment board.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the party, federally and provincially, we would like to wish you and all the workers, staff and members of Parliament on the merriest of Christmases and a happy new year.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 12th, 2002]

moved that Bill C-206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (persons who leave employment to be care-givers to family members), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I cannot say how pleased I am, along with my colleague from Vancouver East and all of the New Democrats, and all members of Parliament and yourself sitting in the chair, to lead off in what I think is a historic debate. We are debating how we could use the laws of Parliament to change Canada's employment insurance system to assist anywhere from 200,000 to three million Canadians when they provide care.

On a personal note I am honoured that my hon. colleague and good friend from Vancouver East seconded the bill. She has experience on the subject and can give personal testimony to exactly what we are speaking about. It would be unfair for me to go into that as she will so eloquently state her personal experience.

Every single one of us probably knows someone, or we ourselves have gone through what the bill addresses. Bill C-206 would allow individuals to care for a dying relative or someone who is under severe rehabilitation in the comfort of their own home. Individuals would be able to leave their place of employment and would have job protection and would collect employment insurance while they provided the loving, palliative care that is so desperately required by dying Canadians.

Bill C-206 will not solve or even get into the discussion of all aspects of caregiving. It is not meant to do that. Being a member of the fourth party, the New Democratic Party, in order to assist the government and other opposition parties it is our role to provide some advice or suggestions. It is our role to say, “Here is an idea. Let us forget about the politics and let us work together to see where we can go on this initiative”. That is the purpose of this debate.

This bill originated in 1997. I had received a call from two of my constituents. Unfortunately, one of them has since passed away. Their names are Pearl and Doug Fleming of Oakfield, Nova Scotia. They were in their seventies and Pearl was dying of cancer. She had been a robust woman of 120 pounds but when I met her she was down to 75 pounds.

All of the doctors told Mr. and Mrs. Fleming that she was dying, that she must be in the Nova Scotia hospital for 24 hour care. Mr. Fleming said no, that if his wife was going to die, he was going to care for her in their home. The doctor said fine and listed the equipment that would be required and the concerns that should be kept in mind. They needed an air filtration system, a ramp, a lift for the vehicle, a special tub, widening of rooms, et cetera.

All the man wanted was to deduct those expenses from his taxes. After fighting for it for over two years, we were finally successful in getting a tax deduction for him. That opened my eyes to what happens in this country and the difficulties that people face time and time again.

I will not use any names, but I know of a woman who now lives in Fort McMurray, Alberta. She was working in the tar sands. She left a small community in Newfoundland for economic reasons. Her father passed away in 1998. In 2001 her mother was diagnosed with cancer and Alzheimer's and was dying.

Being the only child, the young lady had a choice. She could either institutionalize her mother so that her mother would die in a strange building surrounded by people she did not know, or she could quit her place of employment, move back to Newfoundland and provide the care that her mother so desperately needed. She chose the latter. When her mother passed away, she returned to Fort McMurray to see if she could get her job back but unfortunately, it had already been filled.

That should not be allowed. That young woman made a life decision which affected her career. All she wanted to do was care for her dying mother in the comfort of her mother's own home. She did not want the taxpayer to pay hundreds of dollars a day for health care in a nursing home. She wanted to give her mother the care that her mother had given to her when she was a child. She saved the state a lot of money. This young lady left her home in Newfoundland to find work, which is what we encourage Canadians to do to become productive members of society. Yet when she made a life choice, there was no program in place to assist her.

This is just one story of thousands of stories I could tell and they are all true. Every day in our society people make that difficult choice when they get a phone call telling them a relative is dying or has been in a severe accident. I hope and pray that it never happens to any parliamentarian or staff member or anybody in Canada who is watching this.

Madam Speaker, imagine if you were to receive a call today that one of your children had been involved in a severe accident. I know what you would be doing right now. You would be rushing to the aid of that child and you would be with your child for as long as you could. But what if you suffered financially because of the concern and love you have for your child? Madam Speaker, what if your employer could not let you go because of constraints or some other reason? You would then have to make a very difficult choice.

I know what most Canadians who are loving parents would do. They would worry about the money aspect later and would concentrate on the here and now which is the care and love for the child.

Madam Speaker, if you were pregnant and gave birth to a wonderful child you could take a year off with pay under the maternity leave provisions in the employment insurance program. There are paternity leave provisions as well. This is a great program to have at the beginning of a person's life. That nurturing for the first year of a child's life is wonderful and I do not think anyone wants to take that away.

But what do we have at the end of someone's life? Nothing. That is what the bill is meant to correct. Bill C-206 is not perfect. What I am asking is that members send the bill to committee so we can debate the issue more thoroughly and carefully. I am asking for a full year but if members of Parliament feel that is a little much and that we should start slowly and work up, I would agree with that.

I am trying to start the debate on palliative care, end of life care, and severe rehabilitative care, and there is hope. It has been mentioned recently in two throne speeches given by the Liberal government. In his report Senator Kirby has dedicated a whole chapter, either chapter 8 or chapter 9, to this issue. Commissioner Romanow in his recent report on health care mentioned it on pages 184 to 188. There is hope. The debate is out there.

We recently sent out letters to over 500 organizations across the country looking for their support. In the span of two days we received close to 200 e-mails saying that we absolutely have to do this. Those e-mails came from across Canada.

Again, for those who are watching, my bill would allow a person who leaves their place of employment to care for a dying loved one to have job protection. The person would be able to stay at home and care for their dying loved one, under a physician's care. The physician would have to indicate that if that person was not getting the care at home, the person would need to be institutionalized.

We all know how much institutional care costs. Depending where one is in the country and depending on the level of care, it could cost $180 a day, $700 a day, or even more.

We are asking that an individual be able to collect employment insurance so they can leave their place of employment in order to provide that care. It would save money. In fact we have hard evidence from very good sources that for every dollar spent on the employment insurance program we would save five to six dollars in health care. Who would be the biggest winners financially? The provinces.

I was very pleased to see on CBC National after the federal and provincial health ministers met that Mr. Gary Mar of Alberta said he was more than willing to work with the federal government on a palliative care leave program. Gary Mar and I may come from different walks of life politically but I was very proud of him for having said that. He knows that something has to happen.

The burden of care is really hard on a lot of people. In fact, an awful lot of employees feel they have to fudge their statistics at work, that they have to lie. They have to claim sick leave or take stress leave. That costs the economy almost $2.6 billion a year. Employees have had to leave because of the tremendous stress they are under providing that type of care.

Financially, the provisions in the bill would make it a win-win situation for the country. It would be a win situation for the families.

There are companies doing this already, for example, GlaxoSmithKline, a big pharmaceutical company. I called Leanne Kitchen the other day. That company has a 13 week program that allows its employees leave with pay in order to assist a relative under palliative care in an end of life situation. GlaxoSmithKline is quite large and very profitable so it can afford to do that. Many businesses cannot afford to do that, so we need the federal government to step in and show leadership.

The House of Commons can show leadership. Every single program we have has come with a struggle but nothing compares to the struggle that families have in making decisions when it comes to their loved ones.

I want to state four points. Every Canadian has the right to die with dignity. Every Canadian has the right to be free of pain. Every Canadian has the right to be surrounded by their loved ones. Every Canadian has the right to die in the setting of their choice.

On a personal note, I cannot thank my sister enough for the care she gave my father when he was dying. I was fortunate that my mother and father lived in the basement suite of my sister's and her husband's house. When my father was dying it took a long time but my sister and my mother provided the care for him when he was dying. I was lucky because members of my family could do that.

Think of that woman from Newfoundland who did not have family members to do that and think of the choice she had to make. She had to quit her job and move back to Newfoundland because of her love for her mother. She watched her mother die knowing she was out of work and wondering what she was going to do when her mother did pass on. Fortunately, after a year she was able to find work again and she is back on her feet but what a struggle. She has asked me not to use her name because of her pride. That is just one story of many others.

I cannot thank enough Gail Broom, of the Family Caregivers Association of Nova Scotia, who has been helpful in assisting me in drafting the bill knowing full well that the bill is just one aspect of caregiving. There are many aspects of caregiving, from Alzheimer's to physical disabilities to mental disabilities, and so on. We can talk for a long time in the House on all aspects of that.

Again, I am concentrating more on the end of life care and severe rehabilitation. If we were to move toward that effort it would be wonderful.

I wish to mention another aspect that we tend to forget sometimes, that of seniors who in many cases are looking after more elderly seniors, especially in rural areas. Those of us who come from rural areas know that the access to medical care and facilities is not as available as it is in major urban centres.

A classical example is my good friend Floyd Day from the Eastern Shore in Nova Scotia. He is 72 years old, his mother is 92. His wife is elderly as well. His wife and mother are not doing well and he has to provide the care for both of them.

This particular bill would not assist him in that particular case, but it would show the possibilities of what we can do to assist people like Floyd Day, when seniors care for seniors, especially in rural areas.

Approximately 220,000 Canadians die every year. A recent poll said that 90% of Canadians, if they had the choice, would prefer to stay in the comfort of their own home and be able to die in their own home. About 6% of caregivers in the country feel that they could adequately care for their loved ones under that circumstance. Nearly 75% of those 220,000 people die in strange places, such as hospitals and long term care facilities.

We will all get old one day. Dying is something we should not be afraid to discuss or talk about. It is a fact of life.

Madam Speaker, if you had the choice, where would you prefer to die? Would you not want to be free of pain? Would you not want to be surrounded by your loved ones? Would you not want to die in a setting of your choice? Would you not want to know that your caregiver was not suffering under financial strain, or respite strain, or whatever requirement to be able to provide you with high quality care?

We all know that when people enter a strange building, such as a long term care facility or a hospital, right away they are emotionally drained and are looking around, saying, “Is this it? Is this what I have to look forward to for the rest of my life?” No.

When the time comes for me to die I hope that I am surrounded by my daughters--hopefully they would have kids of their own--my dog, or if my dog is not around maybe another one, my beautiful wife, my brothers and sisters, and my good friends. I do not want my caregivers to suffer financially because there was no program in place that would assist them.

I want to thank the members of the House of Commons for listening today. I want to thank my seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver East, who has personal experience with this issue. I want to thank Floyd Day, and Doug and Pearl Fleming for their stories, and for the ability to meet with them and share with them their experiences.

I encourage the House to move the bill along. If it needs to be amended, so be it. But let us work on it together and let us give Canadians truly a beautiful and blessed Christmas present. God love you.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of questions for my fellow Yukoner from my former Yukon days but I will narrow them down to specific areas that would help my riding.

First, we all know that the military is severely underfunded in terms of the Sea King replacements and those need to be addressed.

Second, the previous industry minister, Mr. Tobin, had said the government would have a shipbuilding policy. It wrote a booklet called “Breaking Through” and we still do not have a shipbuilding policy which would help the domestic shipbuilding industry, especially in Atlantic Canada.

Third, we know that the Coast Guard, from coast to coast to coast and in central Canada, is in dire straits.

What would the hon. member recommend to his finance minister to correct all three deficiencies prior to the next budget?

[National Security, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our Coast Guard is in a shambles. Our military is severely underfunded. Our customs officers do not have the tools to do their job. The defence minister and the foreign affairs minister signed, without parliamentary consent or without parliamentary due, a $35 million two year deal with the Americans on further integration which we fear is going to be the slippery slope to the loss of our sovereignty.

In fact the defence minister said yesterday that we control that slope.

I would like to ask the defence minister, prior to the further integration with the U.S. on the security deal, will he please bring those people before Parliament--

[National Defence, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am on the defence committee and we never once discussed this agreement before that committee.

The fact is, we have major differences with the United States when it comes to military issues. We have differences over nuclear arms, landmines, the international court and our Arctic sovereignty. The United States still has not recognized Canada's Arctic sovereignty.

Again I ask the Minister of National Defence why he enters into these agreements without input from Parliament and, for that matter, all Canadians.

[National Defence, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is rewriting defence and foreign policies on the fly. We asked a couple of months ago about the deal and about the terms and conditions of the agreement signed today with the United States with absolutely no input from Parliament or, for that matter, all Canadians.

We know what happens when the government operates in the dark. The mismanagement of Bill C-68 is a classic example.

Why was this deal signed with the Americans with absolutely no input from Parliament and, for that matter, all Canadians?