Peter Stoffer

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. Let us say that an individual signs up for the military and two and a half years later is severely injured and has to leave the military because he can no longer serve. What happens to that individual? That is a very good question.

That is why the new veterans charter has been described by all parties as a living document. When individual cases of this nature come into play, it is up to government and the departments of DND and DVA to work together to consolidate their resources to make sure that not only do the individual and that individual's family have the immediate treatment they require, but that they have the opportunity to move forward.

However, in the unlikely event that they can never work again, either through physical or mental challenges they may have suffered as a result of their injuries, we as a government should be as compassionate as possible to ensure that their needs and the needs of their families are met extremely well.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre.

It is with great pleasure that I rise on the budget debate this afternoon. I know that all governments have to make choices. Choices are made easier when there is access to finances that can be used. If we did not have access to finances, then we would have to make tough decisions in that regard.

This particular budget is severely lacking in what were considered as promises and indications made by the Conservatives when they were in opposition and now when they are in government.

We have seen various reversals of positions. Some people call them broken promises. Some call them deceptions, deliberately or indirectly, but the reality is that there have been major reversal decisions without much consultation with the public.

We can take the reversal on the income trusts as an example. Although we believe in the end that it had to happen, these trusts should never have been set up in the way that they were in the first place. Governments knew full well that these major tax concerns would be affecting the government in some way.

I personally believe that the government should not have made that promise before the campaign. People would then have been very careful with their tax dollars.

What I find most offensive about this particular budget is that the Conservatives have a $14.2 billion surplus, more than they anticipated. When they were in opposition, they repeatedly criticized the Liberal Party for excessive surplus budgets by saying it is coming from employers and employees in the country.

With that kind of money, $14.2 billion, regardless of how it was achieved, we would think the government would be able to help some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of the most bravest in our society.

We moved in this House a veterans first motion. Elements of that motion were the veterans independence program for widows and widowers; raising the pension allowance from 50% to 66%; getting rid of what is called the gold digger clause, so regardless of when a person remarries there would not be any discrimination after age 60; and that a person's second spouse at the time of his or her death would be entitled to that person's pension benefit.

There was to be an end to the clawback at age 65 for those who have become disabled, the clawing back of the CPP pension and then the disability pension. There was also the SISIP program. Two DND ombudsmen said it was unfair and it needed to be rectified. The House of Commons moved a motion stating that.

Many people across the country had repeatedly asked the previous Liberal government to deal with this issue. It failed. Now the current Conservative government is failing on the issue of protecting our veterans and those who have become injured within our military service and their families.

For less than 2% of the total surplus of the budget, the government could have dealt with the SISIP issue once and for all. The $290 million estimated price tag would have once and for all fixed the financial situation, so that these thousands of injured soldiers and their families would have financial relief and be able to move on with their lives.

One would think that with a $14.2 billion surplus the Conservatives would somehow find $290 million to fix the problem once and for all. What was the answer? No. It was not even in the budget. What a shame.

On the VIP, the now Prime Minister gave assurances to a woman in Cape Breton named Joyce Carter that if his party formed the government the VIP would indeed be extended immediately to all widows and widowers, regardless of the time of death of the veteran. Sixteen months later what do we see in the budget? Nothing.

This House also moved a motion on autism which the Conservative Party supported. We have asked that the government immediately reconvene a meeting with the provinces and the stakeholders to discuss the best way to move this issue forward. We know it is going to take financial and human resources to assist the provinces and territories in the delivery of care and treatment for families with children dealing with autism.

We thought that after the motion passed in the House, even with the support from the Conservatives, that it would be mentioned in the budget. Not a word.

There were also aspects on the fishery concerns. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they wrote letters to Danny Williams saying they would immediately invoke custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. There is nothing.

We also had promises on equalization, promises that the offshore accords for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would not be touched. Again, there is a complete reversal of position.

Here is the reality with a surplus of $14.2 billion. People in our income bracket, those making well over $100,000, are doing quite well now. The reality is that I do not need a tax cut. Those people who need help with taxes are the low income earners and the pensioners, those in the lower middle class. MPs and senators do not need a tax cut.

The reality is that at the same time we need to reinvest to help those people who are disabled or widowed or who are struggling to get through their day to day lives with the excessive costs of health care, et cetera. They are being ignored by this budget.

What is most offensive is that these assurances were given by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. They said that if they ever formed a government, they would clean up 13 years of Liberal inaction and move forward on these issues.

We hear them time and time again saying to stand up and support the troops. I congratulate them for doing it. I am glad to see that everybody in this House does, but I question the Conservatives when it comes to supporting the troops when they have to take their uniforms off, when they become disabled and have to leave the military, or when they become old and aged veterans, or when they pass on and their families are left behind and their spouses are looking for help.

I have over 20 world war and Korean veterans in the area of the Halifax Regional Municipality, HRM. Every single one of them has one thing in common with the others: they were denied hearing aids.

They were denied hearing aids because of the fact that a lot of them did not have a hearing test when they left the war in 1946 or 1947. They were young and they got on with their lives, but now their hearing is really suffering. They have been told by audiologists that there is a connection between what happened in their wartime service and their loss of hearing now, but DVA says they did not have a test in the beginning so they do not qualify.

With a $14.2 billion surplus, one would think that DVA and the government would honour the words that the Minister of Veterans Affairs said in opposition and has said in government, which were that we should always give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. He said that repeatedly.

I ask this government, the cabinet and the DVA to honour the commitment in those words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and give the benefit of the doubt to these aged veterans so they can have some comfort in the remainder of their lives. With a $14.2 billion surplus, if they cannot do it now, when are they going to do it? These are not young men and women any more.

Our injured soldiers deserve better.

Children with autism deserve better.

These are just some of the elements, in a short 10 minute speech, that I am able to talk about a bit. There are so many more deficiencies with this budget.

Again, when we have the finances at our fingertips to really help people in this country from coast to coast to coast, why did the Conservatives ignore them? Why was the government so callously arrogant in its approach to this budget, thinking that these people would not notice?

These are people who served our country. They deserve better. We have the opportunity to do it. We should have done it, but they missed out. It is not good enough to stand in the House and say, “We are working on it and we will get around to it”. That is what was said when they were in opposition. That is what they are saying in government.

The government needs to move much, much faster on this issue, because if we do not, an awful lot of these brave men and women will pass on because of their ages, and they will not have received the help they required.

That is not how they should end the rest of their lives. They should know that the government and this House of Commons, regardless of political party, cares about what they have done. The reality is that it should have been in the budget and it was not.

It is not too late. The Conservatives can turn around right now, stand up in the House and say very clearly that they made a mistake, that it was an omission and they will put it back in.

For children with autism to be told by the government that there is no help for them because it is not in the budget is unacceptable. That is why, along with many other reasons, we in the NDP cannot and will not support the budget.

[Veterans Affairs, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Conservative Party that I also have a friend and she is an 81-year-old widow from St. Peter's, Cape Breton. She was promised by the Prime Minister that if the Conservatives ever formed a government they would extend the veterans independence program for widows and widowers immediately, but there was not a word in the budget.

My question for the government is quite simple. Did the Conservatives deliberately mislead an 81-year-old widow who looked after one of our veterans or did they just not get the job done?

[Ransom Myers, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness I bring to the attention of the House the loss of one of Canada's greatest world renowned advocates for biodiversity and conservation of ocean life. Dr. Ransom Myers recently passed away of cancer at the age of 54. He is survived by his wife, Rita and five children.

Dr. Myers was born in the United States, but came to Canada. He became instantly known as an advocate for conservation and all aquatic life in the oceans, not just off Canada's coast but around the world.

He sounded the alarm with other scientists about the upcoming cod collapse prior to 1992. He has raised alarms on all kinds of species throughout the entire world. His work will carry on, although his voice now remains silent.

On behalf of all of us in the House of Commons, we extend our sincere condolences to the family, to all his friends, to everybody at Dalhousie University and to the thousands of students whose lives he touched.

Dr. Ransom Myers was indeed a wonderful and kind human being.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I work together on the veterans affairs committee and he knows very well, as he has been a long time member of this chamber, that when the Conservatives were in opposition they always mentioned the fact that when motions are passed by the House that should express the will of government in its financial statements and in everything else.

The hon. member knows very well that we passed a motion in the House recently that would assist widows, widowers and veterans themselves. In a couple of cases, the VIP, which he knows was promised to Joyce Carter, a lady from St. Peter's, Cape Breton, in a letter written on behalf of the then opposition leader, saying that if the Conservatives formed a government they would immediately bring in the VIP for all widows and widowers of veterans, regardless of the time of death.

That was almost 16 months ago now and we are still waiting. If the government is going to deliberately mislead widows of veterans, who else is it going to mislead in the country? It has easily mislead Atlantic Canada on the accords, for example. It is quite despicable that the leader of our country, in previous opposition times, can have a letter which deliberately misleads a widow of a veteran.

The budget did not even mention the VIP for widows of veterans, even though it was a motion passed in the House.

Does my hon. colleague, who is also on the veterans affairs committee, not find it despicable that a government, with a $14.2 billion surplus, cannot find a couple of hundred million dollars out of that, less than 2% of the total budget, to assist all widows and widowers of veterans who helped serve our country so greatly in its time of need?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are very good at telling us to read the budget. I did read the budget. I read it twice. There are so many things missing, but with the shortness of time I will concentrate on one issue.

When the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill was in opposition, she was a terrific critic for her party, going after the Liberals, and rightfully so, on many faults they had. When she and her party were in opposition she was very well known for saying that when a motion passes this House of Commons, this should reflect the government's ideology and what it should be doing because the will of Parliament has spoken.

Not only did the Conservatives ignore the veterans' first motion in the budget, helping VIPs, widows and injured soldiers, for example, but they completely omitted autism. Autism did not even get a mention in the budget, even though it was passed with Conservative support in a motion by the hon. member for Fredericton.

I have a simple question. With a $14.2 billion surplus, could the Conservatives not find it in their hearts, one, to have included autism in the budget to help those families and children across the country; and two, why did the government ignore a motion passed by this House of Commons?

[Battle of Vimy Ridge, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the words Juno Beach and Dieppe conjure up images of brave battles in World War II, but before those battles there was the Battle of Vimy Ridge where, it is known, Canada became a nation and came out of its infancy at that battle of Easter 1917. Thirty-six hundred Canadians paid the ultimate sacrifice. Thousands of other Canadians were casualties through either mental or physical disabilities suffered in the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

What made Canadian soldiers leave the fish plants, the farms, the factories, the small towns and the larger towns of Canada to go overseas and fight an enemy they knew very little about? What drove young Canadians to lie about their age to get into the service to risk their lives for king and country?

When the sirens of war were echoing throughout the world, Canadians from coast to coast to coast signed up. There were no distinctions among English Canadians, French Canadians or aboriginal Canadians. They were all Canadians. They all fought as brothers in arms to protect the integrity of the free world.

When our allies valiantly did everything they could to free Vimy Ridge from the clutches of our enemies, the leaders of that day said, “Send in the Canadians and see what they can do”. The Canadians went and they were successful, but at a very heavy price. It is that price that we honour here today and every day.

On Remembrance Day on November 11 we gather at cenotaphs and in halls across the country to pay tribute to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and to those who have served. To the families of those who lost their sons and daughters in conflicts and wars, especially at Vimy Ridge, Remembrance Day is every day for them. For their descendants who are here today, many of whom will be travelling next week to Vimy Ridge, they will be paying an honourable tribute to those who have fallen.

As the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs has said so often in the House, we will be hearing the echoes of thanks from those who passed the torch to us. Ninety years later, Canadian soldiers are still serving in conflicts around the world, doing what the premise of Vimy Ridge was, which was to free people, to free them from the tyranny of aggressors and to sacrifice their own lives so that future generations can know the freedoms that we know in this country.

The beauty of April 9, which is coming up, is that so many young people from this country will be going over there so that they in turn can understand, feel and see what Vimy Ridge is like, so that they can touch the monument and understand why it is there and in turn can pass on to their children and their children's children many years from now the continued legacy of honouring the bravest of them all, those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

It goes without saying that this has nothing to do with politics. These brave young men and women from all backgrounds left this country to serve. We can imagine them sitting in a trench on a cold, muddy day, sharing a cigarette with a comrade or maybe the last can of bully beef, something they detested, and borrowing a pencil to write that last letter home. We can imagine a young soldier writing to his mom and saying that he did not know if he was coming back, but that he was there to serve and he was praying he would get through it, and if he did not, he was asking his mother to please keep his memory alive.

That is exactly what we are doing here today. It is exactly what a contingent of thousands of Canadians will be doing very soon.

With that, I say on behalf of all of us in the House of Commons to all of those families who remain, who remember the ultimate sacrifice that was paid, that it is a tribute to them that we are able to serve in the House of Commons and pay the ultimate homage to their sacrifice with regard to a tribute that they so rightfully deserve.

We pray for a safe voyage for all those who travel to Vimy. We also pray for their safe return. We pray for all the Canadian military personnel around the world who are doing what their government has asked them to do: serving their country in the noble effort of freeing the world from tyranny and aggression.

Those who have had the opportunity to travel to Vimy Ridge know this, and in the Railway Room here, we have a beautiful picture called Ghosts of Vimy Ridge, so I encourage all of us to once again reflect upon that picture and understand the artist's rendition of what it must have felt like when our soldiers were there. On behalf of our party, the residents of my particular riding and Canadians right across the country, and for those of us who came to Canada as immigrants and call this country home, I can only say that it is because of their sacrifice that we now live in what we call the greatest country in the world.

We make the pledge to always honour all of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and all of those who are willing to risk everything to serve our country. May God bless their memory and may God bless our current military personnel.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from South Shore--St. Margaret's, as well as the hon. Senator Pat Carney and the late hon. Senator Forrestall for the tremendous work they did on this file for many years in trying to bring this issue to the forefront.

Bill S-220 is a compilation of some bills that have been introduced not only in the House but in the Senate. My colleague from South Shore--St. Margaret's has a private member's bill on this, as do I. Senator Carney did yeomen's work trying to get the bill through the Senate and then to the House for this discussion.

I can appreciate some of the concerns my colleague from the Bloc Québécois had but I can assure him that the bill would do quite a lot of good, not only for Quebec heritage but for the rest of the country as well.

Are there a couple of concerns? Every bill has some concerns. As the chair of our committee so rightly said, if we can get this bill to committee we can discuss those concerns in a rather pragmatic fashion and we can bring in people from around the country. We can bring in departmental officials, people from the provinces and, quite possibly, those heritage groups that have insisted on taking over responsibility of these lighthouses. We think that in many ways this is a win-win situation.

The federal government does what it wishes to do through automation now. However, with the technology we have these days many lighthouses have become redundant but their structures have historical significance, not just to us in Atlantic Canada but to people right across the country. Every time one of those lighthouses comes down, either through an act of God or through deliberate attempts by us to remove it, we lose a piece of our history.

I have had the benefit of living on both coasts of this great country and I have seen many lighthouses. It is an absolute joy to picnic near a lighthouse and imagine what it was like 100 or 200 years ago when seafarers plied their trade and used the beacon of hope to direct them into a safe harbour.

We have many folklores and stories about lighthouses. Although we may be romanticizing this particular debate, we believe this issue is of significant importance. Just like other historical aspects within Canada, like grain elevators on the prairies or train stations and other things, lighthouses played a significant role for our ancestors.

We are not asking that every lighthouse be protected. We are not asking that every one of them be designated under a heritage aspect. That would be fiscally unwise and fiscally irresponsible. We are asking that those lighthouses of significant historical importance to the country be protected. People in the Dominion Institute and many others can identify those particular lighthouses.

We know that people within the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, the Coast Guard, et cetera, have expertise on this subject. They could identify the lighthouses that deserve special protection of this nature. We believe that in the end it would actually be fiscally responsible. We also know that many of these lighthouses suffer from environmental contamination and they need to be cleaned up.

As my colleague, who has the honour of living in South Shore--St. Margaret's on the lighthouse route, it is incredible to see the number of tourists from around the world who go to areas like Peggy's Cove, Cape Forchu, Cape Spear in Newfoundland and Langara Island on the west coast and have their pictures taken near what we sometimes call the candy pole or the barbershop pole. Many of the them are in salt and pepper designs as well. These lighthouses are absolutely fantastic. It is absolutely fantastic to explore them, to witness them and to read about their history. When we speak to volunteer groups in the communities that are attached to those lighthouses, we hear their desire to keep those lighthouses.

The love for these lighthouses and their historical significance is something we as politicians should understand more fully. We should also try to assist the volunteer groups in trying to maintain these lighthouses in perpetuity.

The goal of the bill is to eventually get those lighthouses into a state where they can be transferred over to non-profit groups, hopefully within the communities of interest, so that the integrity and the history of these lighthouses can be preserved for many generations to come.

Every time we lose a particular piece of heritage, it is a loss for all of us. I know my hon. colleague from Halifax is very supportive of the bill. I would like to tell my colleague, who is also the chair of our committee, that we in the federal New Democratic Party, as well as the provincial parties across the country, support this initiative.

On some of the concerns that he has outlined that we need to discuss, I am sure we can discuss them in a very pragmatic fashion within our committee.

I would remind the House, as has been mentioned before, that although the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans do not necessarily agree on everything, the reality is that I have been on that committee since 1997 and we have done many reports on all aspects of the fishery, and I believe we can work in a collegial fashion to move this issue fairly quickly.

This would really honour a true friend of Nova Scotia and a long time member, not just of the service, but also of the Senate, of the House and of Canada, the late Senator Mike Forrestall. He was a very decent human being. He had a love for this particular issue. We believe that it would be very fitting, in his honour and in his memory, to move a particular issue of this nature forward.

We believe this would be fiscally responsible. We believe that eventually the finances will be in upcoming budgets for this particular initiative. We believe the House of Commons can, once and for all, actually put its stamp on a heritage lighthouse act so that groups, like the Dominion Institute and groups throughout the provinces, the territories and the country, will be able to honestly say that we worked in a manner befitting this Parliament to move this issue forward in, hopefully, a unanimous way one day.

I am sure the Bloc member's concerns can be addressed in our committee as well. I look forward to that day.

[Canadian Forces, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the NDP will not support the government is because the government will not support injured soldiers.

Two DND ombudsmen asked that the SISIP for injured soldiers be fixed. The House passed a motion recommending that the SISIP for injured soldiers be fixed. For less than 2% of the federal surplus, this problem could have been fixed and these soldiers would not need to go to court to get the money they are rightfully owed.

Why did the government so carelessly and callously ignore the needs of these injured soldiers?

[Canadian Forces, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the federal NDP in regard to this important motion. I thank my hon. colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for bringing it forward due to her continued support for our troops.

I know she has a vested interest, not only as one who cares about military personnel and their families, but also, the base at Petawawa is in her riding and she knows very well what emotions the people of Petawawa have suffered over the past few years as they have lost many of their young people in the conflict and war in Afghanistan. My heart goes out to her riding, to the people and families in Petawawa and to the surrounding communities of the brave of the bravest in Canada.

Today's motion asks us to support the troops. Without reservation, I believe I can speak for everyone in the House when I say that we do. There is no question that members of Parliament support the troops and their families, but I would like to use my allotted time to ask a very important question. The question is this: what happens to the support for the troops when they take off the uniform? This is where I have some great difficulties.

I have been working on behalf of my party as the veterans affairs critic for quite some time and I worked with the previous government on the veterans charter. I offer kudos to the late Jack Stagg, the former deputy minister of veterans affairs, for bringing this issue forward. I believe the new veterans charter will go a long way to assisting veterans and their families as the modern day veteran comes along.

I also have a personal vested interest in this. As people may know, I was born in Holland and my parents and that country were liberated by the Canadian military and its allies, the British, the Poles and the Americans. It is up to us to repay that debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that you yourself are a proud supporter of the legion and the veterans and their families who attend it. You should be thanked tremendously for that.

There are tremendous problems in our country for veterans and their families, not just for the veterans of World War I, World War II, Korea, the gulf war and Afghanistan, but also for our modern day veterans, those who served during peacekeeping times and the cold war. An awful lot of them, almost 4,000 to be exact, have a problem with what is called the SISIP deduction. This was something that we in the NDP had in our veterans first motion, which was adopted by the three opposition parties in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against it at that time.

We should remember what the Prime Minister said when he was in opposition. He said that when motions are passed by the House of Commons, that should bring the direction from government to the forefront. Unfortunately, not only did the Conservatives vote against our motion, but the budget completely ignored that aspect of the motion. When there is a $14.2 billion surplus and they are not going to help disabled veterans now, when do they plan on doing it?

There is a gentlemen in my riding by the name of Mr. Dennis Manuge, who has just started a class action lawsuit with a legal team, and with members of that lawsuit right across this country, to fight the government over the SISIP deduction. Many of our injured soldiers are now facing the choice of losing their homes and equity and being forced into rental accommodations that, in some cases, are of a poorer standard. These are people who volunteered to serve their country and unfortunately were injured in the line of duty. What is being said to them? They are being told that maybe we will get around to thinking about helping them.

When the government has a $14.2 billion surplus over and above moneys required for the day to day operations of government, one would assume that of all governments, this government, a government that reportedly likes to support the troops, would have looked at this issue very seriously, and if it did not want to accept the recommendations from the NDP then it could at least accept the recommendations from the DND ombudsmen.

Two of those ombudsmen have said that the SISIP deduction has to go and that with a $290 million investment this problem will be fixed. That amount is 1.8% of the recently announced $14.2 billion surplus. One would think that in its heart of hearts the government would have come up with $290 million, not only honouring the motion passed by the House of Common but accepting the recommendations of two ombudsmen.

Just recently, Mr. Côté, the DND ombudsman, again wrote a letter mentioning that recommendation to the government. It is still being ignored by the government. For the life of me, I cannot understand this in view of the heightened awareness of our troops, those bravely serving in Afghanistan and around the world and those who have been injured and are coming home. Our troops went through one war. They should not have to go through another one when they get back home.

We have the fiscal capacity to help not just our troops but their families as well. They need to know when they sign on the dotted line that there is what we call the ultimate liability. They are willing at any time to risk their lives so that my colleagues in the House of Commons and I can have a good night's sleep. That is what it boils down to. We parliamentarians have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that their needs are met, not just while they are in the service but also after they leave the service.

It is unacceptable that disabled veterans have to go to the courts to get the government to listen. The government did not listen to two DND ombudsmen. It did not listen to the House of Commons. If the government will not listen to reason and passion on this side, then maybe it will have to listen to the courts.

What kind of a sad state of a country is it when disabled veterans collectively have to go to the courts to get a program fixed? We are talking about a 1% investment of the surplus. If we were to speak to Canadians across the country and clearly told them what the program was about and that for $290 million we could fix the program once and for all, most Canadians would assume that we would do it. But it is not even in the budget. It is a sad day in that regard.

I am hoping this motion will highlight the concern for our current troops and their families. Also, our young troops will become veterans soon. The young of the 1930s and 1940s are the veterans of today.

There is another issue I want to bring forward. On my desk right now I have 22 files concerning world war veterans within the Halifax regional municipality area of Nova Scotia. They all have something in common. They were denied hearing aids. Those people are in their eighties.

The argument we are hearing is that because they did not have a hearing test when they left the army, navy or air force, there is no audiology evidence to prove that their hearing loss has degenerated over the years. Dr. David Lyon of Dartmouth is one of the best audiologists in the country. He has sworn an affidavit and has said very clearly that there is a link between what is happening now and their consistent exposure to loud noise at the time.

Those men and women served in our wars. We cannot even get them hearing aids because of some technical argument. I remind the current Minister of Veterans Affairs who said that when it comes to the benefit of the doubt, the benefit of the doubt should go to the veteran.

There are other concerns as well. On the agent orange file the Conservatives said very clearly that if they formed the government, they would deal with that issue immediately. It has not been done yet and it is not even mentioned in the budget.

There is another most appalling issue. The widow of a veteran was assured by the then leader of the opposition who is now the Prime Minister that if the Conservatives formed the government, the veterans independence program would be extended to all widows and widowers regardless of application or time of death of the veteran. There is not a word of it in the budget.

When it comes to veterans we could speak about them all day and I would love to. Unfortunately, I have to pass the floor over to my colleagues. However, I want to end on a positive note. I thank my hon. colleague from the Conservatives for raising this issue. Any time we talk about veterans and their families is a good day in this place. However, we need more than just rhetoric. We need action. We have listed for the government some of the problems. It has the fiscal capacity to fix them. We are asking the government to fix these problems once and for all.