Peter Stoffer

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to discuss the motion of my hon. colleague from Yukon, Motion No. 265.

I will read it again for the House to put it on the record:

That a legislative committee be established to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), to abolish the legal defence of provocation contained in section 232 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I have always respected the views of other parties, especially those of the government, the Reform, the Bloc and the Conservative Party, but it is amazing to listen to the Reform Party and the Conservative Party. They are the ones who are on record as wanting to lower the age in the Young Offenders Act down to 10 years. Now they are concerned about eliminating a provocation example for the murder of an individual.

Allow me to read some paragraphs regarding two cases. These will illustrate the reasons the hon. member for Yukon brought the motion forward. Listeners may want to turn off their television sets because it is not very pretty:

This motion came on the heels of the Klassen trial's outcome. It involves a murder that took place in Yukon and had outraged Yukoners and Canadians nationwide. The main cause of this public outcry in the Klassen case was the injustice of the sentencing.

This is exactly what the hon. member for West Nova said was there to protect us. It continues:

Ralph Klassen who openly admitted to having strangled his wife (Susan) to death when she tried to end the marriage, was sentenced to only five years in prison. He was charged with manslaughter. This lowered his sentence to five years, or less if he gets parole. Unfortunately there is no lack of examples which resemble the Klassen case where a person kills another human being and receives minimal punishment. One may recall the B.C. case involving Bert Stone, a man who had stabbed his wife 47 times, put her body in a toolbox and then went to Mexico for a month. For this he received a sentence of four years in jail. He had been able to successfully prove that his wife had provoked this violent behaviour by verbal insults delivered over a four hour drive.

It is a one sided debate. The fact is this woman is dead. She cannot rise from the dead and present her case to the courts. The courts have only one person's view on the evidence. The courts took it and gave the man four years in jail, which means with good behaviour he is out in a third. What kind of signal are the courts sending to women, to the defenceless, to seniors, and to young people?

It is quite obvious by the tone of the other three opposition parties that the motion will not go very far. The member for Yukon has raised the issue in the House exactly where it should be. Laws in the country should be made through the legislative process, through parliament, for judges to interpret. It is most unfortunate that the judges in these two particular cases, and there are other examples, have literally given people their walking papers after committing such violent crimes.

In Beaver Bank in my riding a gentleman has received numerous drunk driving charges. I believe on his eighth one he was finally successful in killing someone, a young 18 year old woman who had her whole life in front of her.

What did he get? It was the largest sentence ever handed out for a drunk driving charge: 8.5 years. After only 18 months he was given three days of parole on the condition that if he were a good boy he would be allowed out. This man received eight charges for drunk driving. He received an 8.5 year sentence, the most ever in Nova Scotia, and after 18 months he got three days of parole. Can we imagine what the parents of that child are going through? Where is the justice in that?

Allow me to read a couple of other paragraphs to illustrate the point that my hon. colleague from Yukon is trying to get through. The first one reads:

One of the major distinctions that can be seen for our society is the quest to preserve human life. The defence of provocation came into being at a time when a life came second to an insult of honour. This way of thinking may seem barbaric but this defence has been repeatedly used, even by recent killers to “get away with murder”. In essence it is a licence for violence. By abolishing this defence we would be sending out a clear message regarding murder. Namely, that excusing murder has no place in our society and that violence cannot be used as a response to a non-violent act, a legal act or an insult.

This means the defence can be used in the interests of the killer to have a secure murder charge. In this manner the murder charge can be lowered to manslaughter which carries no minimal sentencing time. This leaves the sentencing of these crimes to the discretion of the judge.

There is also the matter of the definition of provocation as set out in section 232, which can be seen as forming the core of the defence of provocation. It reads as follows:

—a wrongful act or an insult that is of a nature to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control. This does not mean that the wrongful act or insult has to be illegal, simply that it was enough to cause someone's rage to explode and to strike out. It is arguable that no definition of insult or wrongful act can justify someone killing another even at the point of human weakness. Revisiting the Klassen case discussed at the beginning, the provocation of the husband was his wife was trying to leave the relationship.

There was obviously a reason she had to leave and it was probably a very valid one. The paragraph continues:

Already separated from her husband, Susan Klassen indicated that she wanted to end the marriage and to move on with her life.

I may point out that a person who is killed is not a special interest group. A woman who is abused by her husband or by the system is not a special interest group. The special interest group in this particular case, as my colleague from the Conservatives was mentioning in this case, is the murderers. They are the special interest group. They are the ones who put forward their defence to the judges because the woman or the person they murdered is not there to defend themselves. It continues:

No matter how she phrased this, did she deserve to be strangled to death by her spouse? Couples end relationships every day. This decision has become a common occurrence but killing a partner is not a natural outcome of this decision. Killing due to racial slurs, homophobic tendencies or any other prejudice, however mean spirited, should not be enforced or supported in our criminal system. By abolishing the defence of provocation there would be a concrete reinforcement of the notion that killing in retaliation is an illegal act.

The fact is there are too many objective elements in this defence, each of which is at the mercy of countless interpretations.

It is also important to note that the case only brings forth the stories of the killers. The courts only hear their version of what happened and how they were the victims of insults and wrongful acts and therefore forced to kill. Imagine that. They manage to turn it around and say they are the victims when in actuality the dead woman in this case is the real victim.

Another side of the story remains silent as judges and juries decide if the killer will be forgiven for the murder and given a token prison sentence. Let us vote to eliminate this unjust defence which promotes violence and inequality.

I also wish to make a personal note and speak as the father of two young girls, a husband of a loving wife and a brother of four sisters. The fact is that violence against women continues today as much as it always has. Imagine standing in the House of Commons and honestly saying that he was a little ticked off, a little angry, but that was okay.

Imagine if the Littleton, Colorado, event happened in Canada as it did in Taber and the excuse used by the young killer was that they teased him and upset him? Imagine if the judges said that was a valid defence and he received a minimal charge? What would the parents of the victims say? What message is being sent out?

The opposition is correct when it says that defence issues and legal issues are very complex and cannot be based on emotional rhetoric. I agree. This is why the hon. member for Yukon has asked for a legislative committee to be established. Although her purpose is to get rid of the legal defence of provocation, she is a very reasonable, understanding and intelligent woman. If the legislative committee agrees with certain changes to the act, she would support it because it would be an all party committee.

I cannot help but think how great it is that the hon. member for Yukon has raised this very serious issue in the House for debate so that it can be further debated within committee and within the justice department.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-78. I understand this will be my one and only time to speak to it.

We have heard other adjectives to describe the bill, but my favourite is that the legislation came from the south end of a northbound cow. It does absolutely no good for the Canadian people. It does absolutely no good for the regard of parliament.

This is another example of the Liberal government having absolutely no consideration and no respect for the hallowed place we call the House of Commons. All four political parties in opposition represent people in constituencies from coast to coast to coast. Government members disregard us, so that means they disregard our constituents as well and the people in their ridings.

It is a disgrace to listen to them table over 200 pages of legislation which takes a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out and then ram it through. We find out through discussions that when all is said and done not even the auditor general will be able to review the aspects of the bill.

It is an absolute disgrace that current members of the plan who are working pay 7.5% of their salary into the plan. After the $30 billion have been ripped away from their wallets, they will end up paying 8.9%. In essence it is another tax upon Canadians, especially workers in the federal public service.

I read something very interesting yesterday in the National Post . I love this. The government can find more ways to spend money and waste tax dollars than any other government in the history of the House of Commons. The article stated:

Government wants to know what creates unhappy workers. For the first time the federal government is going to survey all its employees across Canada to find out what makes them so frustrated and unhappy on the job.

The government is to spend $1 million to do that. If it wished, it could give me $100,000, which I would spend in my riding much more effectively than it can, and put the other $900,000 toward the debt, reducing taxes or into social programs. I could tell the government for free why people are so unhappy and so angry at the federal government.

First there is the pay equity concern. It totally ignored pay equity. It broke its promise on pay equity. On the table 2 negotiations there was another broken promise by the federal government. It absolutely forced the lowest paid workers in the federal public service back to work against their wishes without even consultation in terms of consideration for fair collective bargaining.

We could talk about our military personnel who are in Kosovo right now working in our peacekeeping efforts, over 60,000 men and women and their families. There is an absolute disregard for their future in terms of their pensions. It will take this money and spend it willy-nilly.

Our RCMP officers are under attack all the time in the press and sometimes by citizens because of some misgivings of a few of them. The RCMP does a fantastic job. To treat its members this way when it comes to their retirement and taking their money away to be spent in other areas is an absolute disgrace.

I could talk about many aspects of the federal public service. I cannot shout it loud enough. It is a disgrace what the federal government is doing. It has total disregard for its workers and retirees who amount to about 1.8 million people.

I find appalling as a new MP that this kind of effort goes on and on and on. The government has done it in many other aspects. There have been over 50 time allocation motions brought forth by the government since 1993. Now it has brought forth a piece of legislation that is 200 pages thick and has cut off debate after four hours. It never took the government four hours to write up this legislation.

My hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre brought forth recommendations and amendments to the bill. Everyone in the House should heed his warning. If he says they are right then they are absolutely bang on. There is not a more honourable member of the House than our labour critic from Winnipeg Centre. That was a free paid public advertisement for my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

We can go into the various details and aspects of the bill, but I want to ask the government one question. Why when all is said and done will the government not allow the auditor general to review the legislation in upcoming years? Why is it hiding it? Why is it ramming the bill through so fast?

There have been many speculations on that side that the war in Kosovo is a perfect opportunity to present the legislation. It will not make the press. It will not make the news. It can be kept quiet and hushed. As its own internal reports say, if the government wants to do something bad it should do it fast, do it dirty, do it quick and get it over with; forget consensus from the Canadian people and forget even consulting with them. It will not even allow elected parliamentarians to speak to it.

If that is not the case, why does the government not hold committee hearings across the country to get a fair view of what the people are saying? It will not do that because it is afraid to face the public.

I have said to many of my constituents that the government plans to spend the money some three to six months prior to the next federal election. We will see the Minister of Finance and other cabinet ministers going across the country from coast to coast to coast and asking, for example, what Winnipeg Centre needs. Does it need a new road? Does Halifax need a new building? Do they need this or that? Do they need tax cuts? They will have over $50 billion between the EI surplus and the pension surplus to spend at their will.

Liberals keep saying that it is Canadian taxpayers money. However, no one was fooled when they came down with the recent health care budget of $11.5 billion over five years, after taking away $21 billion. This was money that was taken away from employees and employers through the EI fund. That is where the money came from. It was not new money. Maybe next year it will be a green budget. It could be a tax reduction budget. However, I can assure members the money will be taken away from federal public servants and retirees. That is where the money will come from. It is nothing new.

It is the oldest shell game in the book. It robs Peter to pay Paul. There is nothing new about it. It is the oldest form of government. It forms on fascism and dictatorship.

I have always said that it appears at times we live in a capitulated democracy. As long as Liberal backbenchers do what the cabinet says, they can do whatever they want. I would be ashamed to be a Liberal backbencher. They are like sheep or grazing cattle. They sit back and do whatever cabinet tells them.

I would like to be a fly on the wall when federal public servants call their offices to hear what their explanation is, what they tell these people. We know what we would tell them. We would offer our support and tell them that the government should not take this money.

The government should scrap Bill C-78, just ignore it and leave the money where it is. It should reinvest in public servants, pensioners and widowers. It should improve the benefits. It should give better dental care, health care and eye wear. It should improve pension benefits. That is what the money was there for. It was not meant for the government to take and spend at its pleasure, similar to what it has done with the EI fund.

I could talk all day on this subject. Any time we get to bash the government on something that is right we should take the opportunity to do it, but it is rare that all four political parties on the opposition side agree on something. We have agreed on hepatitis C and on various aspects of EI. Now we totally agree on this one.

If the government wants to lose the next election, this is exactly how it should go about doing it. It takes the money from taxpayers and whenever the election is held it tries to buy votes with their own money. Canadian electors are too smart for that. They will see through this smoke and mirrors in a heartbeat. They will know right away. If the federal government wants to try to win the next election, it should start backtracking on legislation like this and start listening to the opposition.

It is deplorable that the treasury board minister who holds the key to the vault says that it is the taxpayers money and no way in hell are the unions to get that money. I echo the words of my colleague for Winnipeg Centre. It is not union money. The unions are saying that it should go to all federal public servants who have retired and all those who are currently working. That is where the money belongs, not to the treasury board minister. It is a disgrace that he would try to belittle the effort of the union.

Although this is the only time I will speak to the bill publicly in the House, we will be raising the alarm bells loud and clear in our ridings.

[Division No. 424, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my four minute speech will not be a love in like the one we just heard. The House is now going to hear some real opposition.

The auditor general recently came out with his report. Chapter 4 discusses the incredible deficiencies within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Recently I asked a question of the minister and got an answer back from the parliamentary secretary regarding shrimp discarding or high-grading.

About a year ago in committee, the member for Labrador asked if there was massive high-grading of shrimp and discarding of small pieces of broken shrimp going on within our 200 mile limit off the coast of Labrador. A letter from industry addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and copied for all members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans stated that high-grading was extremely rare and does not happen as massively or as proportionately as the member for Labrador had indicated.

In a recent meeting we had with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I asked if high-grading or discarding of shrimp happened within our 200 mile limit off the coast of Labrador? The answer was a very solid yes. The next question was how much of this was happening? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that he did not know the answer.

It only leads us to believe that the member from Labrador, who is in the government's own party, was correct when he said there were very large amounts of high-grading and discarding of shrimp going on within the 200 mile limit. That begs the question: How can this happen?

The government has announced in its recent estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a further cut of 17%, totalling $54 million, to science and research over the next three years. This is at a time when the world is clamouring for more scientific information.

We just heard the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture say that what we need is good science. The auditor general has indicated, and I hope he is listening, that 5,000 scientists have been cut from the federal service. These are up and coming scientists, scientists with basic knowledge and long term knowledge of the various industries.

The government talks about needing better science. We cannot have better science if it keeps laying them all off. There are two things we can do to scientists to ruin their careers: take away their funding and discredit their reports. That is what happens here all the time.

We recently had a concern about seals. There were two prominent scientists from Newfoundland, who indicated we have to have a seal cull and the other indicated we cannot have a seal cull.

If the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not the final source of good, solid, sound information, then where do the fishermen and their communities get this information from?

I am asking the parliamentary secretary to answer the following questions. How can the government justify a $54 million cut to science? What is the government doing about the high-grading of shrimp, that is the discarding of shrimp off our coastal waters? Will the government put science back into the information so that fishermen, plant workers, communities and the provinces can have sound, long term management plans for the fisheries off our east coast?

[Canadian Labour Congress, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all my NDP colleagues past and present to say thanks to Mr. Bob White, retiring leader of the Canadian Labour Congress, for over 40 years of service to working people and their families in communities from coast to coast to coast.

As well, we offer our best wishes to Mr. Dick Martin, retiring secretary treasurer. Both these men displayed an undying loyalty to the labour movement and to our party, and for this we will always be grateful.

Our party also wishes to welcome Mr. Ken Georgetti to the position of president of the CLC. Mr. Georgetti will continue the fight to improve the lives of working people, their families and their communities across the country.

For this we continue our pledge to the CLC and to working with it.

[National Housing Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. member from Dartmouth. If everyone in this country was listening to every word she said they would know that she is absolutely right when it comes to an unnatural homelessness disaster in this country.

Unfortunately, Bill C-66 is again legislation that came from the south end of a northbound cow. It just does not make any sense that the government can tinker around and pretend to give the people of Canada the perception that it is going to do something about homelessness in this country.

One would assume that the citizens of this country have a right to accessible, affordable housing, to look after their families, to live in communities that are safe. The government does absolutely nothing for them. It downloads, it skirts the issues, it runs away, it hides. The government never tackles the serious issue of homelessness.

If people need an example of the crisis in this country they could look to Toronto, which is our largest city. It is a magnet for many tourists from around the world. When they come here they think “Canada is great. This is nice. We can walk on the streets”. I was in Toronto yesterday and in two downtown blocks we counted 42 people who were on the streets, begging, lying in sleeping bags and sitting on cardboard boxes. These people have no place to go because the federal government with its provincial counterpart in Ontario have completely ignored them and have concentrated on tax cuts for the rich.

In Ontario an election has been called. Is the provincial government pursuing the matter? Did Mr. Harris, the premier of Ontario, stand today with his colleagues in the Tory party to fight for homeless people? Will the election be based on poverty issues and environmental issues? No. The issue will be based on trouble with the sports franchises. They are going to try to keep millionaire businessmen and players in Canada. There was not one word in the provincial budget which addressed poverty and homelessness in our major city of Toronto. Toronto is a microcosm of what is happening right across the country.

As the hon. member for Dartmouth well knows, in Nova Scotia there are a lot of people who were seriously affected by the downturn of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, let me state this quite simply so that everybody in the country understands. You and I, because of our incomes, live in a fairly comfortable home that we can pay for. A lot of these people live in mobile parks and mobile trailers. There is nothing wrong with living in those nice mini-homes. Unfortunately, if you or I lose our house, with our income we can afford to buy a mobile home which is traditionally of a lower value than a three bedroom duplex. The people in Canso, in Bonavista, Newfoundland and up in Arichat, Nova Scotia are losing their mobile homes. That is a crisis. Where do they go?

Mr. Speaker, you are an honourable gentleman, as everybody in the House is honourable, but what are we doing in the House of Commons as legislators if we cannot protect the most vulnerable of our society?

It is not that much to ask for 1% of the budget over the next few years totalling $2 billion to put back into social housing. We ignore the plight of some of the most vulnerable people in our society: our aboriginal first nations people, our seniors, our children, and those with mental and physical deficiencies. The province of Ontario and its Tory government and the federal Liberal government together concentrate on tax cuts for the rich and how we can make them richer.

In the recent federal budget announced by the Minister of Finance the average tax cut for the middle income earner was about $325, whereas the average tax cut for a person making $3 million to $4 million totals $38,000. If the government can put that much effort into looking after its corporate and wealthy friends, I ask it to put at least half that effort into looking after the most vulnerable in society.

Unfortunately the bill does not do that. It does not even come close. The New Democratic Party is asking the government to go over the bill again. If government members want to know how to do it, they should come to Vancouver East and sit down with the member of the New Democratic Party who represents that area. She will tell them exactly what they should do to prevent the unnatural disaster of homelessness.

That is all they have to do. They do not need more studies. They do not have to throw more money after reports. All they have to do for one hour is sit down with the member for Vancouver East and she will tell them exactly how to do it. With wonderful advice from her they will be able to solve the problem of homelessness from coast to coast to coast.

It is a shame that in 1999 we are standing in the House of Commons to discuss this very serious issue. In 1989 the leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Ed Broadbent, moved an all party resolution to end child poverty in the country. Now, 10 years later, child poverty has increased four times. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Tories and Liberals of that period ignored the very serious motion and recommendation brought forward by Mr. Ed Broadbent.

Now we are discussing the homelessness issue, an issue that is not discussed often enough in the House. If members of parliament want to know what it is like to be homeless, they should leave their credit cards and wallets at home and live on the streets of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Halifax in January. They should do it for a month if they have the guts to do it. That is what thousands of people go through every day.

I plead with the government, I beg the government, I deplore the government to pay serious attention to the plight of those people. It should look after social housing from coast to coast to coast. It should not download its responsibility on to the provinces again, which is exactly what it plans to do.

I beg the government to put 1% of future budgets totalling $2 billion back into social housing. That will also create jobs in communities which badly need them. As the member for Dartmouth said, it needs to be community based and non-profit. If these people are given the tools to work with, they will be able to look after themselves.

I hope my comments today have resonance with the Liberals, and I hope they make the right decision when final decisions are being made.

[Hepatitis Awareness Month Act, May 5th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-508, an act to provide for a Hepatitis Awareness Month.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great privilege to introduce this bill. I also want to thank my hon. colleague from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia for supporting this initiative.

What we are trying to do on this side of the House is make the month of May hepatitis awareness month. It would be a gesture on the part of all parliamentarians in the country to honour and respect those people who have hepatitis in various forms.

I do wish to stand up on behalf of Mr. Joey Haché and on behalf of Mr. Bruce DeVenne from my riding of Lower Sackville who have hepatitis C. This bill will honour them in their fight and struggle for fair compensation and fair packages, and make everyone more aware of the people who struggle with hepatitis in their lives.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Fisheries, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in his recent report on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the auditor general has concerns about the lack of scientific or biological resources with which to assess the shellfish industry. He pointed out the possibility of highgrading or dumping of smaller or broken pieces of shrimp within our waters.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There was a recent temporary increase to 12,000 tonnes of northern shrimp. Was that tac taken on scientific and biological evidence? Is his department looking into the auditor general's concerns about highgrading of shrimp in our waters?

[Fisheries And Oceans, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has just recently released his report on the state of the federal government's management policies, or the lack thereof, of our east coast shellfish industry.

He rightly points out the lack of resources in his scientific assessment of the various species such as crab, shrimp, scallops and lobster. He also points out that the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans do ignore advice from various sources.

I will quote from the report:

We noted significant weaknesses in the Department's management practices designed to achieve its objectives for the Atlantic shellfish fishery. Our audit found decisions that contradict the Department's Fishery of the Future strategy, which formed the basis of our criteria for this audit. In addition, the Department is pursuing social objectives that it has not articulated to Parliament, and economic objectives for which it has not identified expected results. There is an urgent need for the Department to clarify these objectives and to develop and implement the strategies to achieve overall sustainability of the Atlantic shellfish fisheries.

The NDP wishes to thank the auditor general for his report.

[National Housing Act, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, again we rise up in the House to debate another bill that came from the Liberal government. This is a piece of legislation that came from the south end of a north-bound cow. That is exactly where it came from.

The previous member spoke about the hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton. The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton sees through the government's plans and that is why it is so upset and is trying to discredit her in any way it can.

The government is again trying to download federal responsibility for the citizens of this country and load it onto the provinces. That is absolutely unbelievable.

In Nova Scotia, for example, the government downloaded the responsibility for social housing onto the backs of the provinces by saying, “No problem. We are done. We have done a good deed”. That is exactly what it is trying to do now, only in this particular case it is making it worse.

The government wants to merge with a company called General Electric Capital Corporation, a large, foreign-owned multinational company, so it can do the mortgage insurance part of it. Not only is the government downloading its responsibility to the provinces, it is also giving the financial responsibility away to a foreign multinational corporation. Where is the heart in the government? It is absolutely unbelievable that it can continue to do this.

The destruction of the federal role in housing began in the 1991 budget when the then federal Conservatives announced the end of federal funding for new social housing. As usual, the Liberals have reformed the Tory policies and have made them even worse. The Liberal government continued the abandonment of social housing in 1996 when it began to download social housing back to the provinces. It concluded downloading agreements with seven out of the ten provinces. B.C., Alberta and Ontario are currently the holdouts.

This is just another disguise, another masquerade by the government to download its responsibility for housing onto the backs of the provinces and tell the citizens of the country “Don't worry about it. The provinces will look after you”. That is absolutely unacceptable and shameful.

Let me put some personal perspectives on this. I come from the beautiful riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore in beautiful Nova Scotia. Many people in my riding, as well as in all of Atlantic Canada, have been hurt by the downturn of the fishery. These people have lost their homes. There is probably nothing worse to a family than losing their home, the shelter, the peace, the security and the ability to bring up their children in their own home.

What happens when they look for assistance and help from the government? They go to the federal government and get slapped in the face one more time. The federal government, with its Ottawa-central attitude, is saying “Too bad, so sad, make it out on your own”.

I wonder where the heart is in the government. Whatever happened to the Pearson days? Whatever happened to those caring Liberals who cared about Canadian citizens, not just about the bottom line of foreign national corporations?

We hear the rhetoric from the government time and time again that it is on the right track; it knows what it is doing. It tells us not to worry, it can be trusted. It is absolutely despicable.

Allow me to reread what the current finance minister said while in opposition; “Dear friends”—I love that term—“Our platform documents provide a framework for government in the 1990s”. Let me make it abundantly clear that a Liberal government should be absolutely committed to stable and secure funding for the non-profit and co-operative housing sector, but it is not. It has completely abandoned its responsibility.

It gets to the point where we wonder why we even bother coming here. Are we relevant any more to the Canadian people, except the government's friends and the party? It goes on and on and on. Even the UN has discredited our policies when it came to that.

We have many reports we could speak about, but the abandonment of housing by the federal government comes at a time when the need for federal support is even greater. We need support from the federal government in resources and manpower more than ever.

The Golden report on homelessness stresses that all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, have to co-operate to put an end to homelessness. What the federal government wants to do is just abandon its responsibility and say to the provinces and municipalities “It is your problem, you look after it. We are just the federal government. We absolutely have no heart. We do not really care about you anymore”.

The government has proven that in many other industries. It has proven that in our defence capabilities, in the fishing industry, in agriculture with the farmers across the country, and small business. And when it comes to the most basic need of Canadian citizens from coast to coast to coast, affordable social housing, the government is abandoning that as well.

The Liberals talk about CMHC, that great corporation, and what they are going to do. In actuality the government is going to eliminate any power or control that we as members of parliament may have. The government is going to stack the CMHC board of directors full of its Liberal friends. Patronage. The pigs are at the trough again. They are going to feed at taxpayers' expense with absolutely no concern for Canadian citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable.

When I came to Ottawa, and I assume I speak for all 301 of us, in both official languages I might add, our goal and role in life was to help those who cannot help themselves. We certainly did not come here to abuse labour rights. We did not come here to abuse the environment. We certainly did not come here to neglect those who cannot help themselves.

Federal social housing is a policy that should be upgraded and maintained. There should be resources and manpower available in order to maintain that.

Other than that, what are we going to be telling our children? What in God's name are we doing here if we cannot help those who cannot help themselves?

The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the hon. member for Vancouver East are two women who have fought harder for social housing than anybody else in the country. I am very proud to be their colleague.