Peter Stoffer

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague from British Columbia. One of the reasons we have the United Nations is so that one nation cannot act unilaterally against other nations. That is the reason why the United Nations was developed well over 50 years ago.

I would assume that the member has been talking with her constituents and others across the country as well. Would she not agree regarding the fact that most Canadians I have spoken to and most of the ones we have spoken to at length really are hoping that any action, any resolutions or anything, must come from the world community through the UN?

I know that some folks here have criticized us for going after President Bush in that regard, but bear in mind that if we disagree with a particular policy of the President of the United States it does not make us anti-American. We know that the Americans are our best friends and our best trading partners, and we will be allies for a long, long time. Sometimes we do question some of their policies, both historically and the current one as well.

This is why the NDP in particular, and others in the House as well from all other parties, encourages whatever action required to deal with Saddam Hussein to come from the United Nations, because it will not just be Saddam Hussein. What is next after that? What precedent will it set? We believe seriously that action must come from a directive of the United Nations, completely and wholly. Would the member not agree with that?

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that makes me a bit nervous is when he talks about us focusing our cooperative efforts with the Americans in order to have Saddam Hussein comply with any possible UN resolutions that may come down the pipe.

My concern is the possibility or the perception that one nation or a couple of nations may act unilaterally in a particular theatre of the world in order to achieve an end goal. My approach and that of my party has always been that any action or any resolution must come fully from within the United Nations itself. If the United Nations decides on a plan of action, then that is the direction I believe it should go without any possible perceptions of coercion or whatever.

History is littered with rogue nations that had thugs as leaders: Mouammar al-Khadafi of Libya, Idi Amin of Uganda and Pol Pot of Cambodia. The world is littered with some pretty bad people who have done some rotten things to their own people. We, as an international community, are very hesitant to go into those areas to protect the citizens of those countries.

My question to the hon. member is, would it not be better to work through the United Nations on a more multilateral approach to this very serious problem in the Middle East? If we act unilaterally with only a couple of nations, we could be opening a door that we may never be able to close.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member read the throne speech. On page 5, in the second paragraph it talks about the fact that the government will modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for the gravely ill or dying child without putting their jobs or incomes at risk.

It basically means that if people care for an individual who is in a palliative care situation or in a severe rehabilitation situation that they would be able to leave their place of work and receive some form of income most likely through the employment insurance program to care for their loved one and give their dying relative a sense of dignity before they pass on. It is exactly the same type of language that we have in a private member's bill which we have introduced in the House now for the third time.

Does the hon. member and his party support this type of initiative to assist the thousands of family caregivers in the care of their loved ones?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his speech and definitely let him know that I agree with him in terms of Katimavik and assisting our young people in helping clean up this planet, not only at home but abroad as well.

While we are talking about helping people, one of the things the government is planning to do--and I am not personally going after the member in this regard but he knows very well what I am about to speak to--is make changes to the disability tax credit.

The throne speech is grand on words. Everybody is supposed to feel so much better about this but the reality is that people in the country with disabilities are being attacked by the policies of the government. The finance minister has proposed changes regarding feeding and clothing oneself and telling people that if they can go 50 metres on a level surface with a device, even if they need to rest along the way, they will no longer qualify for the disability tax credit, which is only $1,000 a year maximum claim. The average claim is only $600. So 106,000 people were sent this notice and thousands more are about to receive it. Under no circumstances was the Canadian Medical Association advised. In fact it has said very clearly that it should be up to the medical profession to determine a disability, not the bureaucrats in Ottawa.

My question to the respected member of the House is, what is he prepared to do to push his government to stop this reprehensible attack on the most vulnerable in our society?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burin—St. George's knows very well that it was this government that imposed the airline security tax of $24, taking from air travellers millions and millions of dollars.

My question for the hon. member is about the following. The disability tax credit change by the government is one of the most reprehensible things the government has ever done to the most vulnerable people in our society. We are taking away an average of $600 per disability tax credit claim from the most vulnerable in our society, people who left their legs over in France during the war, people who are severely disabled. The government, through the finance minister, is changing the definition of feeding and clothing oneself. I would hope that the hon. member, who represents his constituents and does a good job, does not support that finance minister in these changes.

What is the hon. member prepared to do to stop this cruel punishment of the most vulnerable in our society?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the lack of details in the throne speech. According to the Solicitor General we have to wait for the details until he gets the details. It is quite obvious that when the Liberal government gives us more details then we will have the details. If he can figure out what I just said, he is a better man than I am.

When the hon. member talked about labour he forgot one very important element, the fishermen in his riding and what the federal government has done to the commercial fisheries on the west coast. I would like to give him the opportunity to stand up for a couple of minutes and explain to the House how the Liberal government has, through its Department of Fisheries and Oceans, brought devastation to the fishermen and their families in coastal communities on the west coast .

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague on two things. When members cross the floor they should quit, run in a byelection and then allow the constituents of their riding to decide whether or not they should fly under another political banner.

The member is correct about that reprehensible $24 airport surtax. He is a very astute student about Atlantic Canada, and I know his party is working hard there. The Government of Canada takes $60 million a year out of the Atlantic Canada economy in the security tax and only puts $10 million back in. My big problem besides that it is a lot of money is that it is going into port security, not airport security. Air travellers of the country are paying for security in other areas.

Does the hon. member agree with that sentiment? I would also like him to elaborate a bit more on that.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, one aspect of the throne speech which was severely lacking was resources for those people who uphold the laws of Canada.

Right now we are short about 1,600 RCMP officers across the country. There is a very good chance that within three to five years we could be short 3,000 to 5,000 members through attrition and retirement. What is the cabinet or the government doing to address that serious issue?

[National Revenue, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's legacy will be that it took money away from the most vulnerable in our society and turned it into corporate jets for the Prime Minister's luxury.

Last March the committee studying this issue and backbench Liberals were all saying that the proposed changes to the disability tax credit were reprehensible and very regressive.

Why is the government picking on the most vulnerable in our society? Will the Prime Minister stop these changes and give the money back to these people who so rightly deserve it?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up the lack of attention in the throne speech regarding fishery related issues. We are both on the same committee. He correctly brought up the lack of detail or any kind of attention to this serious issue which is affecting the coastlines in this country.

I would like the member to elaborate more. We had a terrible incident on the west coast regarding the coast guard and a family of five that passed away. We had an incident prior to that in British Columbia where a person went over a bridge and was killed because of a lack of a proper diving unit and a lack of resources to our coast guard.

I would ask the member, if the government continues on this path, what does he see for the future of the west coast when it comes to coastal surveillance in our country?