Peter Stoffer

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct about making a promise and then a great fraud. I will not go into the 1993 red book promises that were broken because that is old history. However, I will carry on with the current government and some of the things it has said to people. Then it turns around and does not do them, not even in the budget.

We have been working very hard on extending the VIP to widows and World War II and Korean veterans. I asked a question in the House on Thursday. The Minister of Veterans Affairs stood and said that he spoke to Joyce Carter and that she was quite happy with him.

In a letter in today's Hill Times, Joyce Carter says that she is ashamed of the government. It has a $14 billion surplus, but there is nothing in the budget to help them.

My question for the hon. member is on the Atlantic accord. The Atlantic accord was broken. It was passed by his colleague, the former prime minister, along with our premier, John Hamm. The government broke that accord. Does the member not think that falls under the fraudulent use of words by the government when it betrays the good people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by first saying that I have tremendous respect for the hon. member who just spoke, but she talked about the values that Canadians wish to have, such as investments in health, education, infrastructure and so on, yet her own government announced, and she said so in her speech, $100 billion worth of tax cuts in 2000.

We said the same things in 2000 that she says now. We said that many people were left behind, including autistic children and veterans, as well as the shipbuilding industries and everything else.

Yes, it is indeed important to ensure that taxes are done fairly and equitably right across the board. If reductions need to take place, they need to be done with a proper and thorough debate in the House of Commons.

I would like to give the member an opportunity to elaborate a bit more on this style of government we are seeing, with a government that turns around and gives a massive tax break to very profitable corporations, usually in the financial and the oil and gas sectors, corporations that are already making record profits under the current tax system.

Yet the government turns around, and except for a penny or two off a cup of coffee or whatever, average Canadians will not realize any major tax reduction at all in their taxes. Yet the very wealthy who run some of these corporations will realize the lion's share of these cuts.

Does the hon. member not think it appropriate that we should be investing in those people who are going to be left behind by the government, including farmers, fishermen, Inuit, first nations people, children with autism--I go back to that again and again--and families who are suffering? What about homelessness? What about infrastructure and so on? There are so many things the government can and should be investing in, but it simply has re-gifted many things that we in the NDP pushed for in Bill C-48 of the previous Parliament.

Why does the member think that the Conservative government and its Conservative members, who individually are really decent people, collectively seem to have lost their minds? They have gone blank. I would like to give the member a chance to elaborate a bit more and enunciate to us why the Conservatives would be so cold-hearted on many of the things I have just mentioned.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct about housing. I just did a tour of the far north in the high Arctic and talk about acute housing needs. The people up there desperately need help and they need it now. The Conservative government is completely ignoring them.

The reality is the government has clearly defined that it is only for the individual, where we in the NDP are for the collective. That is a very clear distinction.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on why in a nation that should be a healing nation, in a nation that encourages all people to have the same rights and benefits, the government is leaving so many behind.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a staunch defender of his constituency, his city, his province and his country.

He is absolutely correct when he talks about the municipal deficit in terms of infrastructure for water, sewer, transit and so on. The infrastructure in the cities and rural parts of Canada are crumbling.

My question is with respect to the human deficit.

The government is giving over $7 billion to the most profitable corporations in the country, some of which are foreign owned, all of which are making very good money under the current tax regime, but it cannot help children with autism. The government tells widows of veterans that they have to wait. It tells atomic veterans that it might get around to them. It tells agent orange victims that only some will receive compensation and the rest will not.

What type of government would ignore the plight of so many who are being left behind to enhance the profits of those that are already doing very well in this country?

[Veterans Affairs, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot even get him to blush anymore.

Let us see what the Conservatives track record is. The government promised that it would do a full public inquiry and compensate all the victims of agent orange, the defoliant spray, from 1956 to 1984, not 1966-67. It also promised Joyce Carter the extension of VIP services immediately to all veterans and all widows. It also promised to fix SISIP for injured soldiers who suffer from their mental and physical disabilities, yet nothing.

If this is the track record that the atomic veterans have to face, I feel very sorry for them. Will the government—

[Veterans Affairs, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about human rights, let us talk about the rights of veterans.

Yet another group of veterans is proposing to take the government to court to fight over fair compensation and reasonableness in its battle with the government. In 1957 a group of Canadians were sent down to Nevada for atomic testing. These Canadians have been waiting and waiting for fair and proper compensation.

I would like the government to stand up in this place, look into the camera and tell Jim Huntley of Alberta this. When they will receive fair and adequate compensation for what happened to them 50 years ago?

[Autism, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we know the government has a habit of ignoring motions passed by the House by the opposition, but it is really incredible when it ignores a motion that it supported.

Earlier this year, the House unanimously passed a motion to deal with the situation of autism in our country. The government sits on billions and billions of dollars of surplus, yet not one additional penny is available to coordinate with the provinces and territories assistance for children with autism and their families.

What is the government waiting for? The governments of Europe and of the United States are moving very quickly with a huge investment to assist these children with autism and their families, yet the Conservative government ignores a motion by the House to have a meeting with the provinces and territories to deal with a national plan and with this crisis.

Given the right opportunity and the right investment, these children could have an opportunity that all children in the country have. Autistic children are living in the most beautiful country in the world. It is time the government stood up and honoured that commitment.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2005 the Prime Minister, who at the time was the opposition leader, wrote a letter to a widow of a veteran saying that if his party were in government, it would immediately extend VIP services to all widows and veterans. The budget does not address that aspect—

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for pointing out some of the industrial strategy challenges in the province of Quebec. We in the maritime region have the exact same problems.

I want to talk about the direction in which the Conservative government is going.

Sunday was Remembrance Day and we all commemorated and honoured our veterans and those who currently serve in our military. The Conservatives made specific promises to veterans in the last campaign. They said that upon forming government they would immediately extend VIP services to all widows of veterans and to all veterans. They also said that they would compensate and look after all people who were sprayed by defoliants from 1956 to 1984, but they only did it for the years 1966 and 1967. The government has said it does not have money for these people, but it gave $7 billion in additional cuts to big oil companies and big banks, which are making record profits under our current tax system, thanks very much. If it were not for our veterans and their families, we would not have the country we have today.

I would like the member to elaborate on what kind of heartless government would do that to the people who served our country and then turn around and ignore them the day after Remembrance Day.

[Phthalate Control Act, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the issue that witnesses came before the committee and gave very misleading evidence. I am just wondering why professional people in their capacity would do that knowing full well that there was evidence contradicting what they had to say.