Peter Stoffer

[Armenia, October 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his partial answer to my question. I appreciate the fact that the minister has made himself available. Still, this is two days in a row and it is a simple yes or no answer.

I will water the question down a bit to make it easier for the government. Will the government at least indicate to the airlines that it will look at assuming full costs, full control and full employment of all employees and all security levels at airports in Canada?

Right now pre-board screening goes to a tender process and 99% of the time it goes to the lowest bidder. We are asking these people to be at the same level customs officers are at now which, by the way, is handled by Transport Canada or Revenue Canada.

[Armenia, October 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I raised the same issue on the late show regarding airline security. I asked the government if it would accept full responsibility for pre-flight screening of hand luggage and passengers. This is now handled by the airlines.

As I said yesterday, at the Ottawa airport there is a big sign before people go through the x-ray machines which says “Airport security is an airline responsibility”. As a former airline employee, for years I have been saying that this should be the responsibility of the government. Now with the events of September 11, one would assume that the government would finally figure out that it is its responsibility. The government should have full control over training, employment and the standards that are adhered to in pre-boarding flight screening.

I asked another question yesterday, which did not receive an answer, with regard to the x-raying of all check-in baggage and cargo prior to entry onto an aircraft. This is still not happening. There is nothing stopping a terrorist from getting on board an aircraft with checked luggage which has something inside it that could do great damage to the aircraft while in the air. I could check in all kinds of paraphernalia in my suitcase and board the aircraft. I will be checked, my hand luggage will be checked but my check-in baggage will not.

When will the department start x-raying all luggage, materials and cargo going onto the aircraft prior to departure?

I also asked about removing metal cutlery from the aircraft, such as serrated knives. I give the minister and the airlines credit because they did remove those articles from the aircraft. In fact, some of the airlines removed the entire meal service. That ended that problem.

My questions are straightforward. I ask my hon. colleague to put down the notes he got from the department. He is very capable of speaking for himself. Will the government accept full responsibility and full costs for employment and training airport security? Will the government implement a program to x-ray all luggage and cargo prior to departure of the aircraft?

[Armenia, October 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I must say that one of the greatest honours I have had in the House of Commons was when the member for Cambridge held an evening here with the Armenian community. A stamp was displayed by Canada Post in honour and recognition of the Armenian community. Anyone who was there that evening will agree what a wonderful event that was.

The colour, the history and the culture of the Armenian community are things we as Canadians should value and recognize in a historical context. It is an outstanding contribution to Canada when we consider the people's history. My wife's uncle who lives in California is Armenian. I will be sending him a copy of the tape of this evening's proceedings because he himself would like to see this country move forward on such a motion.

I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to make this valuable motion votable. If it is made a votable item I believe it will have almost unanimous consent of the House. Then we could tell the Armenian community in Canada and in the world that we truly care about them and respect the historical wrongs of the past. Maybe by making it a votable motion we could put some closure to their file.

I ask for the consent of the House to make this motion votable.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his answers.

However I do not have a definitive answer to whether the baggage and cargo are going to be x-rayed prior to delivery on board an aircraft. That is the question all Canadians are asking me to ask the government. Also he did not answer whether the federal government will assume full control, full cost, full employment of all pre-board screening officers in the entire country.

Those are the two questions. A simple yes or no would suffice.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on September 18 I asked the Minister of Transport quite bluntly if the government would assume full control of pre-board flight screening inside the Canadian borders.

Right now customs agents receive an entire year of training before they are put on the job by themselves. Pre-board flight screeners, these officers who check the luggage and hand baggage before people board the aircraft, receive 20 hours of training. Even after the terrible events of September 11, that has still not changed.

The airlines, especially Air Canada, have been asking the government to assume full cost, full control and full training for pre-boarding screening officers throughout the country. In fact, many members of parliament, when they leave the Ottawa airport, see a big sign at the pre-check screening board which says “Airport security is an airline responsibility”. That is simply nonsense. It has to stop.

The Government of Canada must assume full cost and full control of airport pre-screening at airports in Canada, that includes small and major airports.

I will give the government credit. After September 11, and long before that, as a former airline employee, I asked the government many times to ensure that identification checks were done on people prior to the boarding of a flight. That I must say is now being done.

There is another dangerous aspect of airport screening that is not being done. Nothing is being done to stop terrorists, who have no concern for their own lives, from putting something in their suitcase, checking it in and having it go onboard the aircraft in the underbelly. They then can sit up top and an hour later in the flight a disaster can strike.That can still happen today.

I do not mean to frighten airline passengers or people willing to take flights in the future, but there is no x-ray of baggage or cargo going onboard airplanes. We have it internationally but not domestically.

Countries in Europe are doing it now and I encourage the government to move with as much speed as possible to x-ray all baggage and cargo that go on aircraft to ensure safety and to give back the confidence that the travelling public deserves.

We encourage the government on two points. First, assume full control of security at all airports in the country, including the cost, the training and employment of these people. The ones who are there now do a good job, but they simply do not get the income nor the training to do their job post-September 11.

Second, and I cannot reiterate this enough. it is imperative that the government assume control of the x-ray of all baggage and cargo which goes on board an aircraft. If it does that, it will indeed give the travelling public the confidence it needs.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act (2001), October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia for his comments on the bill before the House in terms of child pornography. As he well knows the current attorney general of Saskatchewan, Chris Axworthy, who was a 10 year member of the House, introduced a private member's bill years ago specifically dealing with Internet access to child pornography which I have now taken over.

With the expansion of the Internet our children are at greater risk in terms of child pornography and pedophilia. The pedophiles are getting smarter in attracting unaware children. Unfortunately many parents do not understand the risk. Why does the hon. member feel that the government is so reluctant to tackle such an important issue in a strong and forceful manner?

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, it gives me mixed pleasure to rise today. I feel like the world series, that I am batting cleanup now in this debate. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents of Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore. I believe this constituency will be sending more troops out than any other riding in Canada. Over 700 people from my riding will be severely affected by the decision of October 8.

Before I start my speech this morning, I would like to comment on the button that I am wearing today. It is a U.S. button made by two students at the Beaverbank-Monarch Drive Elementary School in Beaverbank, Nova Scotia. The students' names are Spencer and Jacob Dwyer.

After the events of September 11, these young children decided they had to do something to ease the pain of those people in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. They did not ask questions as to why. They did not look at the long term political answer as to what happened. All they knew was that something was wrong and that they had to help. These are children.

With the assistance of Mr. Terry Broadbent, the principal, the students, the teachers and staff of the school and the parents, these two young children designed the button and raised over $1,200 by selling them.

I salute Spencer and Jacob Dwyer, their families, the principal and all the students for their effort in recognizing that adults can learn so much from our youth. If that is a classic example of the youth we have in the country, I believe that Canada and the world will have a great future.

There are many challenges but I believe that we have a great opportunity to move forward using the example of these great children. I thank them very much as their representative in the House of Commons.

It is rather ironic that we have the hon. member for Oak Ridges here. He and myself have a bit of history together. His father was actually a liberator of Holland, the country in which I was born. My father was a Dutch POW during 1945 and was liberated by people such as his father, as was my brother. For that, I will always be grateful. My mother is watching television now in Vancouver, but my father has since passed on.

If it was not for the sacrifices of Canadians, Newfoundlanders and all allies, I certainly would not be a member of parliament today. It is something that I will hold dear. My father instilled in me the respect and admiration of our military men, women and their families and, of course, the great country of Canada.

We came here because of what a young military soldier said to my father. He said that they had come over because they had a job to do. It was as simple as that. My father always said they if that was what the Canadian military was like, then imagine what kind of country they had. So in 1956 the decision to move to Canada was not a very difficult one indeed.

There is a troubling issue in the House of Commons and I heard it throughout the speeches today, even in some speeches of members of my party. I feel very sad that my party and other political members on both sides of the House wish to play politics with this issue. It is absolutely unacceptable that, at a time when we should be unified, when we should be behind the Prime Minister and when we should be representing all Canadians, we are playing politics with this very serious issue.

I think Canadians can see through that clearly. I think they are very disappointed in us not being able to put our political differences aside, as we do for example in many of our committees.

If the Canadians could see us in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I believe they would see that we work very close and well together. We put our political differences aside and work toward the common goal of making it better for our armed forces personnel in terms of equipment, their livelihood and opportunities within the military, as well as for our veterans.

However, when we come in to this Chamber or we get before a camera or a reporter, we want to play politics with a very serious issue. Again, my party does that as well. I am disappointed in all of us for doing that.

I find this absolutely unacceptable. I think it will be a long time before Canadians forgive us for this.

I also wish to indicate that my assistant has a fiancé who is a navigator on the Sea Kings and will be flying over on Wednesday. My other assistant has a brother-in-law who is a navigator on the Sea Kings. It breaks their hearts to hear members of parliament criticize the role of the equipment that we have today.

There is no question that the Sea Kings need to be replaced. There is nobody in the House of Commons that wants them replaced more than I do, because I represent the Shearwater air base where those Sea Kings are located. It does us no good to call them rickety. It does us no good to say they will fall out of the sky. There are men and women attached to that equipment and they are very proud of the job they do. The maintenance people on those helicopters do a fabulous job. It does us no good to play politics in the House of Commons with the equipment these people operate. There is no question that the military requires more resources. I even believe that the Prime Minister knows that and I believe the resources will come.

However, we can achieve this goal for our military by working together, not separately. If we do that I believe we will have armed forces that not only are we proud of now but that we will be very proud of in the future. I believe that young people who wish to look at the military for a long term career may look at it in a more positive way than some of them do at this time.

That also includes care for our veterans. We need to care for those who fought during the wars, in the gulf war and in other areas of conflict. We need to look after their concerns and the concerns of their families in a better way.

On Wednesday, as you know, Mr. Chairman, our troops will be leaving from the port of Halifax and I will have the pleasure of being on the stand with many other dignitaries to say goodbye to many of my friends and neighbours and to many of my colleagues in the armed forces personnel. It will be a sad day because they will be leaving behind their children and their loved ones. That is never easy, but I can assure the House as one of their representatives that I am extremely proud of the fact that the men and women and families who will be left behind will also be doing a service for their country. They know that democracy is not a spectator sport. We all have to pull our weight.

I encourage all Canadians who are watching now or who will listen to this debate in the future to really respect and understand what the families are going through. I believe if we do that we will make the job of those men and women overseas even easier. Knowing that they do not have to look over their shoulder or worry about the concerns of their families, they can do the job that we have asked them to do. We as Canadians should have the fortitude to give all the care, comfort and resources that these families require. I believe if we do that their job will be much easier in the long run.

In terms of the proposed terrorism act, there is no question that this is a good time to discuss it. It has obviously been moved ahead more quickly because of September 11. There are some suggestions that I and other members of our party have made in terms of the terrorism act. The first thing we have asked for is that airport security be handled by the government. It we go to the Ottawa airport we will see that airport security is controlled by the airlines. That has to change. The government looks after customs. The government looks after policing. The government should look after pre-boarding screening as well and take it away from the control of the airlines. We also notice that the airlines are asking for that as well. I encourage the government to move on that very quickly.

Also there is the aspect of the Shearwater air base that I represent. There is a plan afoot for DND to divest itself of 1,100 acres. Part of that 1,100 acres is an extended long runway which is used for Hercules and bomber aircraft, jet fighters, et cetera. I think it would be prudent for the government to hold off on that divestiture until we get a clear picture of the world situation in months or years to come.

I have asked the chief of the defence staff and the minister of defence to look at that issue. They have said that they would take it under advisement. I hope that they will hold off on any kind of divestiture right now, including the ultimate service delivery of the supply chain, until we get a clear picture of what is required of our military. I believe it would be a prudent move if the government did indeed do that.

In terms of terrorism, there is a phrase has been used over and over. I would like to repeat it: “You don't protect your civil rights by abandoning your civil rights”.

We have a charter that has made this one of the best countries in the world to live in. There is no question that we need to review immigration. There is no question that the aspect of money laundering should be looked at immediately. However, I encourage the government and all politicians to look for advice outside parliament. There are many people throughout the country and throughout the world who can give us very good advice. I would encourage all of us, especially those in cabinet and the government, to seek out that advice so that we can put the best laws in place, not only to protect our citizens but to protect their rights as well.

There are two people who I have not mentioned yet in the debate, but they are to be commended for their outstanding work. Under their command the forces will be ready on Wednesday and will be flying the colours of Canada very proudly. The first is Colonel Joseph Hincke, the commander of Shearwater air base. With all we have heard about the effects of the Sea Kings, Colonel Hincke has done an outstanding job of preparing his troops and preparing the families for when the troops eventually leave the home base and go overseas for an extended period of time. Colonel Hincke has my deepest admiration and respect.

Above all there is one gentleman who is actually from Dartmouth. It is rather ironic now that he is the admiral of the fleet on the east coast. He is Admiral Bruce MacLean. He is one of the most outstanding Canadians ever. He has focused on the troops and on the families. He is focused getting his troops ready and he definitely lives by the navy slogan, aye, ready, aye. That is a proud example of what we have produced in the country in terms of military personnel. He is an outstanding and very fine gentleman.

I am proud to call both of these men my friends and I look forward to meeting them on Wednesday and congratulating them on the efforts and preparedness they have contributed to our military.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents. I urge all politicians of all parties to put the politics aside, work for what is best for the country, for the world and for our military men and women, and I say Godspeed to their families. Also, I pray for all the poor children around the world who are suffering in these attacks. Children should never be involved in war but they are always a casualty.

[Employment Insurance, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are real problems for the unemployed people of the country. My questions are for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Human Resources Development.

Will the government not reduce the number of eligible hours for thousands of employees and their families from 900 hours to 700 hours?

With the downturn in the economy, thousands of human resources employees in hundreds of offices across the country are under a terrific strain. What is the government doing to alleviate the strain on these very hard-working and valuable employees?

[Petro-Canada, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in 1975 the Government of Canada did a good thing. It followed NDP advice, took over Petro-Canada and made it into the profitable company it is today. Media reports now state that Canada is thinking of getting rid of its last 20% share.

After September 11, with concerns about energy and the security of energy sources on the minds of every Canadian, we ask the Government of Canada to withdraw its decision to sell off the remaining stake. This year alone the government would have gained $19 million in dividends from its 20% investment in Petro-Canada.

In light of the circumstances of September 11 we encourage the government to withdraw selling off any further stake in Petro-Canada and to secure for all Canadians a say in the future energies of the country.

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the only person the EI fund is working for is the Minister of Finance so he can divert the almost $40 billion into other expenditures and not to unemployed workers.

As a former airline employee, it saddens me to know that thousands of my colleagues are facing layoffs along with many other employees of other industries as well.

What the NDP is asking is for the minister to commit to the unanimous recommendation of the human resources development committee to reduce the number of eligible hours from 900 to 700 so that thousands of employees can have access to EI funds and so that thousands of small businesses can rely--