Peter Stoffer

[Transportation between the Island of Newfoundland and Mainland Canada, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be quite simple. I was just in the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador meeting with the minister of everything, Mr. Tom Rideout. We talked about the possibilities of shipbuilding. As the hon. member for St. John's East knows, many of the ferries eventually will need to be replaced and I would like to get his views. Does he believe that many of these ships can be built in Canada including the shipyard at Marystown?

[Harold Elliott, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of all my colleagues in the House of Commons one of Canada's greatest citizens and one of our bravest heroes, Mr. Harold Elliott of Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia.

Harold Elliott is going to receive from the Ambassador of France la Légion d'honneur, France's highest honour, for his efforts in World War II.

Mr. Elliott was born in that wonderful community of Happy Adventure, Newfoundland. He now resides in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia.

During the war he signed up as an underage recruit. He served in the Battle of the Bulge, a member of the only Canadian contingent to do so. He was severely wounded in Normandy, severely wounded in Germany, and spent several years in hospital in Britain and in Montreal. He was a former police officer and police chief in Ontario and Alberta. He now resides in Nova Scotia.

Soon he will be receiving this very great award from the people of France. To Harold Elliott and to all veterans, it is we who salute them and we congratulate Harold on his great award.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, we have many elderly women who have looked after elderly veterans for a long time and as she knows very well, many veterans' pensions, for example, are usually clawed back or deducted from other sources of income. Thus, when the veteran passes on, the spouse is only left with 50% of that reduction. That puts that individual into a big hole.

The last thing any of us in the House want to see are those caregivers, who looked after our greatest heroes, slipping into dire poverty. Could the member comment on that? What would her party recommend in order to alleviate that serious financial problem for the caregivers of our greatest heroes?

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of being here for a while is that we get to hear people when they were in different positions in the House of Commons.

I remember when the Reform Party's environment critic said that global warming was a myth. I remember its agriculture critic saying that marketing boards were not a good system for the markets and that we needed to get rid of marketing boards. Those two things have now changed.

I also remember hearing that particular minister, when he was the finance critic for the Reform Party, talking about the Canada pension plan and how it needed to be radically changed or eliminated and maybe let the people use the money they invest in the Canada pension plan in a private RRSP.

Now I hear the minister, on his road to Damascus, saying that the Canada pension plan is a very important vehicle for seniors. I congratulate him for that because he is absolutely correct.

Last year Statistics Canada made an error in calculating the certain percentage of CPP compared to OAS. Many people have been asking whether the government will correct that error and allow the certain percentage of CPP-OAS contributions to increase more than the 0.5% they have received, in fact the 1.5% to the 2% that they have been asking for, which is the correct Statistics Canada figure.

[Shipbuilding Industry, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member believes that, then why has the industry minister not met with his own committee? The Shipbuilding and Industrial Marine Advisory Committee has asked to meet with the industry minister for 11 months and still there has been no meeting.

The committee has been asking for recommendations since 2001 which would assist the shipbuilding industry, so that we would not have to have tariffs on ferries for example, which is being done in British Columbia. British Columbia could be building its own ferries according to the recommendations of the advisory committee.

Why is the government so reluctant to not only meet with this committee but to accept its recommendations to get the shipbuilding industry once and for all in the air in this country?

[Shipbuilding Industry, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is an industry in this country which could provide thousands of jobs and economic opportunity right across the country, but the government continues to ignore this industry. It is the shipbuilding industry.

The government is in negotiations with the EFTA countries to reduce and eliminate the tariffs of ships built in other countries coming into Canada.

My question is for the hon.Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. Why is the government in negotiation with other countries to put the final death knell in our shipbuilding industry?

[National Strategy for the Treatment of Autism Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of my party on a very important national issue.

Before I begin my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have not had the chance to publicly thank you, as the member for Ottawa—Orléans, for the great work you do on behalf of veterans and the Royal Canadian Legion. I know that you are a great supporter. As a person whose parents were liberated by the great veterans, it is nice to know that your continuous support for veterans is simply outstanding. You should be congratulated for that effort.

On the issue at hand, that of autism, I keep hearing from governments and others that it is a provincial jurisdiction and it is up to the provincial and territorial governments to deliver health care. I was rather pleased by and very complimentary of the fact that the federal government announced, with various agencies throughout the country, a national cancer strategy. I believe the amount was around $260 million over a five year period. Various agencies and organizations throughout the country have been lobbying for this for many years, including many members of Parliament and senators, and we have finally achieved it.

If we are able to do that for something as extremely important as the national cancer strategy, with the same argument that health care is delivered by the provinces, then why is it so challenging when we talk about autism that we have to find jurisdictional battles in which to discuss it?

The reality is that after the end of the debate tonight families are going to wake up tomorrow and will be suffering under the tremendous financial and emotional strain of dealing with children and young adults who have autism. When I go back to my constituents and I tell them there is no help yet, that there may be a meeting in April of next year to talk about it some more, that is another five months.

I have to tell parents that there is no help yet. Then they consider the option of having to move to another jurisdiction that can give them the opportunity for their children to get proper treatment.

The hon. member for Fredericton once told us that he worked on behalf of military families that did not want to move from Edmonton to Gagetown. If their children had autism they would get treatment in Edmonton, but not in New Brunswick. Although they are proud to serve their country, they are thinking of their families. They did not want to refuse the transfer, which of course they cannot, but they find it very difficult. They want to serve their country, but their country is not prepared to serve their families.

We have been asking for this for a long time. I know that the intent or the premise of the bill put forward by the hon. member for Charlottetown is that, no matter where people live in this country, if adults or children have autism there should be treatment available for them. They should not have to reach into their pockets or mortgage their homes or anything else in order to obtain the required treatment.

There is a great old saying: where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit. I know that some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party and others have a very personal view on autism because they themselves have children who have autism or Asperger syndrome or something of that nature. My heart goes out to them and their families, as does my support.

I can almost assure members that if everybody in the House had a child with autism and we lived in the riding of member for Charlottetown, I guarantee that something would happen very quickly. I find it annoying that we can find reasons to say no, but we cannot find reasons to say yes.

I was here on the shameless day when, in three hours, from the House to the Senate to royal assent, we gave ourselves a pay raise. It only took three hours. What a shameful history of the members of Parliament. In three hours we can give ourselves a pay raise, pass it, get it into the Senate and do royal assent, but we sit here and fight about jurisdictional concerns when it comes to some of the most beautiful children in Canada, when it comes to families that just want their kids to be able to grow and have all the opportunities that we in the House take for granted in many cases.

We know there is a financial cost to this, but the reality is that it is an investment. It is not an expenditure. We have proven over and over again that for every dollar we spend on autism strategies and autism treatments we save a tremendous amount of money down the road.

Right now schools in Nova Scotia have teachers' aides dealing with children with autism. Many times children are sent home because they are disruptive in class, so not only are the children going through the concerns of autism, but they are denied any opportunities for an education because in the view of the teacher's aide, the teacher and the principal they are disruptive in class.

We have a so-called fiscal imbalance in this country. Why can the government not work with the provinces and territories, deal with this issue and use this as an example of cooperation among everybody?

I am pleased that the government is going to have a symposium in April, but we have attended and will attend many symposiums, reviews, studies and meetings down the road. What happens the day after the symposium? What do I tell the people in my riding who have children with autism? Do I tell them there is still no help yet, that we are talking about it, but there is no help yet?

An old farmer from Saskatoon once told me that money is like manure. If it sits in a great big pile, it stinks, but if it is spread around it does a lot of good. If the government wishes to deal with the fiscal imbalance of all the provinces in the country, then it should use this as an example. Assist, as my colleague from the Bloc said. Let us assist the provinces. Let us give them the resources they need so they in turn can develop the systems and programs to deal with children and young adults with autism.

The government should assist the provinces, not fight with them. It should work with them, just like it did on the national cancer strategy. It is amazing that the government can come up with $260 million. I give the government top credit for that. It should be congratulated for moving on that issue, but we ask the government to apply that same dedication and spirit to an autism strategy.

Motion No. 172 from my hon. colleague from Fredericton was passed with the assistance of other members and parties in the House. It was a great day when the government actually accepted a motion to deal with a national autism strategy, working with the provinces, but we need to move that up a bit. We need to move it very quickly.

We need to be able to tell the thousands of families out there that they will not have to move any more to receive assistance for their children, and that if they do move, no matter where they go in this country they will receive equal treatment for their children with autism. Would it not be great to be able to say that? We have the fiscal capacity to do it. The reality is that this investment in our children and their families will pay off in the long run.

I want to congratulate all those individual families from across the country, but especially a young man named Josh Bortolotti, whom we all know. He is 12 years old and is one of the top 50 in Ottawa to watch, as they say. He is fighting for a national autism strategy and treatment for his sister. If a 12 year old can dedicate his life to fight for treatment in Ontario for his sister, surely we as members of Parliament can do that right across the country to help all families who have children with autism.

I want to thank the hon. member for Charlottetown for bringing this very important subject and debate to the House of Commons.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. We cannot even get the Conservatives to say that they are sorry or that maybe things they said in the past should not have been said. They could at least blush or show some sense of humility.

In the early 1980s and late 1990s under Mulroney, the Tories invoked closure many times and the Liberals went absolutely ballistic asking how the Conservatives dared to shut down democracy. When the Liberals formed power, they did the same thing 50 or 60 times and every time they invoked closure the Conservatives went absolutely ballistic. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that it was an outrage. He had utter disdain for the way the government treated Canadians.

Now we have the same Conservatives invoking closure. If they can reverse themselves on floor crossing, on appointed Senates and on income trusts, they should at least have the courage to say that they are sorry.

Since the Conservatives are completely reversing themselves on the closure aspect, I want to give the government House leader the opportunity to tell Canadians that he is sorry. That would be suffice for us.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the primary role of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the protection of fish and fish habitat. In his own province there are two lakes near the Exploits River near Buchans in central Newfoundland which, through a legislative sleight of hand from DFO and the Minister of the Environment, have turned healthy productive fish lakes into tailing ponds for a mining company.

Why would the Department of Fisheries and Oceans allow healthy productive fish lakes to be turned into acid ponds for a mining company when its job is to protect the integrity of fish and fish habitat?

[World War I Veterans, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Canada should honour all who served Canada in the first world war by sponsoring a state funeral on the passing of the last Canadian veteran of this Great War.