Peter Stoffer

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, admittedly many people watching this probably may not have a full grasp on this. They probably assume that corporations are getting away without paying their fair share of taxes. However, would the hon. member to break it down?

Some people in my riding owe about $1,600 or $1,700 in back taxes. They are being charged interest and penalties on that to the point where the interest and penalties are even more than the principal amount they owe. The CRA is going after them very hard, yet we hear consistently of companies that are getting away with tax avoidance altogether.

Would the member to break it down when he talks about tax fairness? The member is right in that the minister should table in the House specifically through a ways and means motion what he is upset about. However, an awful lot of Canadians are upset as well. If the minister can screw up so badly on this file, what do average, ordinary Canadians think about what is happening to them with their taxes?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. There is great disappointment in this budget because in many ways it divides Canadians but does not unite them.

I would also like to give the member the opportunity to explain to Canadians, especially people in his riding, what democracy means. Democracy means when the Prime Minister, who was then in opposition, said that when a motion passes the House this is what government should adhere to.

A motion did pass this House last November. It was called the veterans first motion. In that motion, we asked that the SISIP program be redone. Two DND ombudsmen also said the same thing. It is unfair to disabled soldiers when their insurance money gets clawed back. It is a sin. We have the fiscal capacity to fix it. We waited for the budget; it was not there.

Then there is the VIP extension for widows and widowers. That was in the motion passed by the House. It was a promise by the Prime Minister, but it was not in the budget.

Then there was the elimination of the gold-digger clause when soldiers and RCMP officers married after the age of 60. That was in the motion passed by the House. Two Conservatives had private members' bill on it. Yet the Conservatives voted against it.

There are many other things that we would like to see done. In the brevity of time, those are the three main elements.

Why does this member think the government so callously in opposition supported these endeavours but once in government voted against them even when it has the fiscal capacity to help the widows, and our injured soldiers and veterans?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, May 14th, 2007]

The shipbuilding sector too.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member forgot to mention a couple of other promises the government has broken.

Members may or may not know, but Ottawa was recently blessed with the visit of over 70 war brides from Ontario and the Maritimes. They came to Ottawa to have a terrific weekend, to be together and to enjoy their stories. Many of them are widowed.

One of the things they talked about, when I met them for breakfast this morning, was the veterans independence program. Some of the women get it; others do not. However, they were unanimous in their approach that all widows of all veterans should receive the VIP.

In fact, the Prime Minister also believed that when he was in opposition. He went so far to believe it that he wrote a letter saying that all widows and all widowers and all veterans would receive the VIP immediately upon forming government. He is now government. Sixteen months later, these widows, most of them in their late eighties, are asking, where is it?

I want to give my hon. colleague an opportunity to respond on behalf of the veterans and widows of his riding. What does he think the Prime Minister should do? It is quite a simple answer in that regard: extend the program immediately, as he promised so that these widows and their veterans can get on with their lives.

[Netherlands Liberation Anniversary, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, at 11:30 today at the National War Memorial there will be a wreath laying in honour and commemoration of the 62nd anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands.

Those of us from Holland and those of us of Dutch ancestry wish to continuously thank the Canadian people and remember the sacrifices of our armed forces personnel during that terrible time of World War II.

We in Holland have a saying that if you are not Dutch, you are not much, but we only get to say that because of the liberation by the Canadians and her allies.

There are 5,700 brave Canadians who are buried on Dutch soil. Today we remember their sacrifices. This weekend, we also remember the sacrifices made in the Battle of the Atlantic. Thousands of armed forces personnel and merchant mariners laid down their lives in the great blue Atlantic Ocean in order that all of us can be free.

This is a wonderful weekend to commemorate those who passed on before us. We would also like to say congratulations to our current armed forces personnel who serve us so gallantly around the world.

It is we in the House of Commons who salute all of them.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns is that when any government at the federal level brings in tougher legislation on crime there is usually a financial cost to it in terms of who pays for this.

We know that legal aid itself is a provincial responsibility but when the federal government brings in an initiative such as this it adds more cost and burden to the provinces.

Does the hon. member not think that if the government wishes to do this, which, in many ways it is correct in doing to ensure the safety of our citizens, that it should first negotiate with the provinces to include more funding in terms of legal aid services for all victims in that regard?

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intent in terms of protecting Canadian citizens from people who could be considered dangerous offenders.

One of the concerns I have is the right of all Canadian citizens, regardless of being innocent or guilty, to have access to legal aid or to lawyers.

An awful lot of people in my riding bring up the issue of the inability to seek legal aid, and legal aid in various provinces is getting harder and harder for people to access in order to have their grievances or whatever heard by the judiciary.

Can the hon. member indicate, in the premise of the bill or in any future aspects of the bill, that everybody, under that premise, will have full and equal access to legal assistance to defend themselves under any circumstances?

[Veterans Affairs, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what absolute nonsense. I asked the Prime Minister to keep his promise, not to have his underlings answer this question.

I have a question on another point for veterans. Many thousands of veterans are suffering from asbestos from the ships used during the war. Many of these veterans are applying for DVA benefits but they are being denied because of their asbestos problems.

My question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Veterans Affairs. When will the benefit of the doubt, which is in the new veterans charter, be honoured so we can help these veterans who served us so gallantly in World War II and in Korea?

[Veterans Affairs, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Conservatives have been in power for 16 months. In June 2005, the now Prime Minister wrote a letter to a widow of a veteran and said that a Conservative government would immediately extend the veterans independence program for all widows of all veterans.

This year alone we will lose about 35,000 to 40,000 of our brave World War II and Korean veterans. Many of them will leave widows behind. These widows are asking for the VIP so that they can stay in their homes longer.

The Prime Minister made a promise and we expect him to keep it. When will the Prime Minister stand up and honour his promise?

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the downfalls of cancelling the court challenges program, as was stated already, is that a lot of people, individuals and minority groups may not have the resources to take a particular situation and challenge it.

As the member knows very well, the Acadian groups of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have successfully used the court challenges program to fight for schools in their language in P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. The government knows full well that those respective provinces challenged those groups in the Supreme Court.

When it is a small group of parents that wants to educate their children in the French language and going against the weight of a provincial government, how is it anticipated that these individuals or groups can challenge a government on something that they perceive is wrong? That is why the court challenges program, in this particular instance, was so important.

I would appreciate it if the hon. member would talk a bit more and elaborate on people, especially outside of Quebec, who are struggling to maintain their French language and their heritage when it comes to challenges through the court challenges program with respect to the provinces.