Peter Stoffer

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, on the member's first question, if he thinks that the lives of the troops and billions of dollars of expenditures toward the country of Afghanistan is only worth a six hour night debate and then a rush vote in the House of Commons, without fair and proper consultation with all Canadians, it is absolutely unacceptable. I would never support that.

On the member's issue of the service fees for the north, I cannot stand in the House and say here is the exact figure because if those fees were removed, we may have even more additional services to the far north.

I remind my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's that it was his Prime Minister who stated what I quoted here in the House earlier. It was the government when it was in opposition that supported the implementation of the exemption. If the member wants to know the true figures, he can easily ask the parliamentary secretary who is sitting right next to him or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

He has had ample time to learn about these figures. These figures change all the time. We do not know the exact costs. We do know that the north has asked us for this. The north has been asking since before 1997 for the removal of these fees. If the member wishes to have an exact penny to the count, hopefully by the end of the day I will get him those figures. I believe his $100,000 figure is way too low.

The fact is that the member cannot compare southern operations to that of the north. It is simply unacceptable. The member knows better than that.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

moved:

That the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the House for the opportunity to speak on what I consider a very important matter related to people who live in our northern territories: Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and of course the northern part of Quebec.

I also want to thank my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, and the fisheries and oceans committee for helping me get this through the committee and report it in the House of Commons.

I will provide a brief history of this issue. We are basically talking about the marine service fees that had an exemption in 1997. Unfortunately, the exemption was never implemented. These fees are having quite an economic effect upon shippers and users of shipping services, plus consumers in the far north.

The statutes are already on the books. We are asking the government members, who supported it when they were opposition, to support the exemption of 1997. We are asking to remove the additional fees that the people in the north have to pay.

For those who are watching, it is quite simple. If a ship transits from Montreal to Iqaluit, it has to pay additional service fees for the privilege of sending freight or cargo up to the far north. If a ship comes from Antwerp or Amsterdam to Iqaluit, no fees are applied. That is unfair and it is time to change it.

I am going to read the motion of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I thank the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, the chair of the committee, for presenting it to the House as a report. It states:

The Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommends that the Government:

1. Not apply Marine Service Fees on Canadian commercial ships transiting to and from waters north of 60° based on the socio-economic conditions of the North consistent with the fee exemption established in 1997;

2. That the exemption be appliely without any further ded immediatelay and that the Canadian Coast Guard's cost recovery policy with respect to the North be subject to further review in the development of a national Future Approach to the Marine Services Fees;

3. Whereas the Marine Service Fees collected by the Canadian Coast Guard on the provision of sealift services to the Eastern Arctic is not consistent with the current exemption based on the socio-economic conditions of the North, specifically the reality that the Eastern Arctic is dependent on re-supply by way of the south given its unique socio-economic conditions;

4. Whereas the peoples across Canada's North including remote communities experience the highest costs of living in Canada; and

5. Whereas the communities and residents of the North maintain and exert Canada's Arctic sovereignty across the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik and Northern Quebec, and Labrador.

These people are the ears and eyes of our north. There has been a lot of talk lately about Arctic sovereignty. We think that the people of the north have a right not only to live in the north of course and have economic opportunities, but we also believe the exemption should remain in place. We think it is inconceivable that the government in 1997 placed the exemption but never enacted it. We could not help but notice that when the Conservatives were in opposition they supported this particular indication.

I would like to read a couple of quotes by someone we all know. A letter was sent to Dennis Fentie, Premier of Yukon; Joseph Handley, Premier of the Northwest Territories; and Paul Okalik, the Premier of Nunavut. I will let you guess who said this, Mr. Speaker, on January 6, 2006. The letter states:

We recognize the unique circumstances faced in the north regarding the delivery of programs and services to residents and we are prepared to discuss the challenges regarding the costs and circumstances for the delivery of those services.

It also states:

3. the need to simplify the spiderweb of federal regulatory authority which threatens economic development in the north;

Mr. Speaker, guess who said that ever so eloquently? It was none other than the Prime Minister himself when he was in opposition. We thank the Prime Minister for recognizing the unique economic conditions of the north. We would like to thank him one more time by accepting this report and removing the fees immediately.

Again, if the government members wish to follow through on their own commitment to the people of the north, we would be glad to support them. Unfortunately, in the estimates we do not see anything of that nature in this regard. Thus, the opposition needs to get the issue back on the table in the House of Commons.

It is time that the government fully recognize the exemption of 1997. That is basically all we are asking for and if we do that I honestly believe we could help the people in the north develop their economies even better.

We cannot sit down here in the south and say one thing and then tell the people in the north another thing. It is simply unacceptable. As a person who lived in Yukon for nine years, I understand quite uniquely the conditions under which the people live in terms of trying to compete with its southern neighbours, and trying to have health and educational services, transportation services and economic opportunities. We need to assist them.

The overall cost to the government is really peanuts when we look at the big budgets it talks about. This would go a long way in assisting the three premiers of the north and their constituents, and the three members of Parliament who represent those areas from Yukon, Northwest Territories and of Nunavut. I thank all three of them for helping us in this discussion and moving this issue forward.

We honestly think that this is something that would be very helpful. I want to thank a couple of people for their assistance, Mr. Richard Selleck from the office of Senator Willie Adams who has been very helpful. Senator Willie Adams represents the north in the Senate. I also thank Mr. Francis Schiller, who has been working very hard and a long time on all aspects of marine service fees trying to get them in line, so that the people of the north, and the people who do business and trade with the north, will be able to have a competitive level playing field when it comes to the same aspects of the economy that we have in the south.

This is a very proper and opportune time for this debate to happen in the House of Commons. I thank all my colleagues here, but I especially want to encourage my Conservative colleagues to move forward on this, especially the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who himself is from Newfoundland and who has commented before about the unique situations in the far north. He knows the unique conditions of outports in the beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador and how we need to help those communities and assist those businesses in creating economic development in the far north.

If the exemption gets into place immediately, we are then as a Parliament telling the north, everybody north of 60, that we understand the situation they go through, the complications that they have, and we will do everything in our fiscal power to assist them.

At this time I would hope that the House would seek a fairly quick recommendation on this and pass it unanimously, so that we could collectively tell the north it is trick or treat time and today, here is a treat and no tricks.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso who understands the great challenges that we have in helping out the north. I look forward to the debate and I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, October 31st, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (increase of allowance for surviving spouse and children).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for seconding the bill. Unfortunately, in this country when a veteran or RCMP officer passes on, his or her spouse is entitled to only 50% of his or her pension benefits but, alas, when a member of Parliament passes on, his or her spouse is entitled to much more. We think that must change and with Veterans Week coming up next week it is a timely opportunity for the House to move on this very quickly.

We are asking that when veterans or RCMP members pass on that at least 60% of their pension be contributed to their spouse until that spouse passes on as well. That would be more fair for the people who serve our country with bravery, distinction and courage. It is time to update that pension legislation so they in turn can leave more for their surviving spouse.

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

[Autism Spectrum Disorder, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we sit in the House of Commons and wonder if a day like this will ever arrive and today it has.

Before I begin I would like my hon. colleague from the Bloc to know that this is exactly what we are trying to do, to work with the provinces. It will be the provinces that deliver the treatment, and we know that, but what is required is some fiscal assistance from the federal government as well. That is part of the national autism debate.

We hope the Bloc Québécois will support the motion of the hon. colleague from Fredericton so we can actually have this debate. The health minister or the Premier of Quebec could sit down with the Prime Minister and other premiers and territorial leaders and discuss how we deal with this very important subject. That is really what we are debating today.

While I am here, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you what happened on my road to Damascus conversion on the concerns of autism which happened a few years ago. While I was walking outside on Parliament Hill, I saw a gentleman named Andrew Kavchak who had a sandwich board sign. The curious person that I am, I spoke to him, which led to a very serious friendship. He introduced me to a woman named Laurel Gibbons who is the mother of a child with autism. Through her initiative, she has worked very diligently with all groups of people with autism. It does not matter whether it is the national autism group, provincial groups or the FEAT group, Families for Early Autism Treatment, and individual members of Parliament and senators, she will talk to anyone about it. Her dedication to not only her child but to other families with children with autism is unbelievable.

I know it is hard to believe but after that I met a certain gentleman from Ottawa who happens to be with us right now. I want to read his card. There are not many 12 year olds in the country who, because of a notice in a magazine in Ottawa, could be one of the top 50 people to watch out for in the future.

This young man is named Joshua Bortolotti. On his business card it says, “Autism Awareness Advocate and aspiring future Prime Minister of Canada”. By the way, he does not have autism but his little sister does. For Sophia Bortolotti, his sister, we should be able to tell young Joshua and his family and all the Joshuas of this world, the aspiring prime ministers, that this is the opportunity we get to tell this young 12 year old who is fighting for his sister and who I wish could have the opportunity to speak here in the House, what we will do today after this rather rational and very serious debate. Do we tell him that yes, maybe there will be the day that his sister and many other children like her across the country will have the opportunity to get the treatment that they require so they can live productive and normal lives in this country to the best of their ability? Or, do we tell them, because of crass politics and jurisdictional squabbles we are not able to do it?

I know many colleagues and friends of mine in the Conservative Party know this issue is very serious. I know many members of the Bloc and the Liberal Party also know it. I also know that Senator Jim Munson of the other place is a strong advocate for early intervention and cooperation between the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions to get this done.

When we speak of young Joshua Bortolotti, in the riding of the hon. member for Fredericton there is a school called the Leo Hayes High School, I believe, which has either a principal or a teacher named Greg Peters. I have received all kinds of tremendous letters from that school. This class of young activists, of all the causes that are out there, decided to take up the cause of autism. They have written to all of us, in both official languages, and they are probably watching the debate now, encouraging and watching all members of Parliament to see how we move this debate forward.

It is a tremendous day. It does not matter who moves the bill or what government does or whose name is attached to anything. This is the opportunity for members of Parliament to work together in a constructive manner to once and for all develop a strategy with the provinces, with various agencies and research firms and the providers of the care to actually say to those families with children with autism that here we go.

In my own riding, we have a military person who has a child who is a flight risk. Every single access to their house is locked. If that door opens just a crack, that little son of theirs will take off and run and run until physically he either drops or gets hit by something.

That is just one of the concerns about a child with autism. There are many of them who are voice challenged; they do not speak. Many of them react in ways that they do not fully comprehend or understand. The concerns for the families are not only the financial costs, but the emotional strain on families knowing that they give up their jobs, they sell their house, and they lose all possible equity. It takes money away from other children in the family. They themselves will pour all their resources into their child with autism.

Here, I believe, is where as Canadians we could something for those families. We all know, those of us who have been interacting with them and seeing them, that children with autism are some of the most beautiful children in the world. They are warm, they are generous and they are kind, but these people are just looking to us for indications of leadership, indications that we can work together, indications that they will not lose everything in order to provide the treatment their children need. We have that opportunity.

Recently I was in British Columbia with my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, and we did a press conference with folks with autism. I met a young mother, and by the way, her sister happens to be my next door neighbour, which is quite a coincidence. She has two children with autism, not one but two, and the financial concerns are completely unbelievable. It is also the emotional strain on the families as well.

The hon. member for Fredericton is absolutely correct. We have the opportunity now to say to those thousands of families in this country, crossing all political lines, that we are going to step up to the plate. We are no longer going to wait for every single person in the country to agree to every single dot of the i's and crossing of the t's.

We have cross-political support on both sides of this chamber. We have tremendous numbers of people across the country who are saying that now it is time for government to move on this. In the era of tremendous fiscal surpluses, we are not asking the federal government to do this on its own. We would not do that because we understand the provincial jurisdictions.

The provinces themselves have challenges on this. I really compliment the province of Alberta because its treatment goes to age 18, while in my own province of Nova Scotia it is a sort of trial program. It is spotty. The province does not have anything constructive. In Ontario, treatment is until age 6, so what we are saying to families is that if they want treatment, maybe they should move to Alberta, but that puts tremendous strain on the Alberta economy.

What we are saying to the national government, working with provinces and territories, is to let us have the meetings that we need to take place to set the ball rolling. If we do that, then we are telling Laurel Gibbons, a mother with a child with autism, and we are telling young Joshua, who is arguing and fighting in such a great way for his little sister, Sophie, that yes, their advocacy has worked, and yes, their tireless efforts on behalf of her daughter and his sister have been noticed and mentioned. We would also be saying it to the school in Fredericton that has done tremendous work in taking on this issue.

It is a proud day as a member of Parliament, not just as a member of the NDP, but as a member of Parliament, with all my colleagues in the House, to stand here and give my thanks to the hon. member, to thank the Chair and to thank each and every one in this House for making this a reality and a possible ending to the concerns of families and children with autism.

[Autism Spectrum Disorder, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank the hon. member for Fredericton enough for his dedication and work for those thousands of families with children who have autism.

Some people would be concerned about the fiscal costs of this initial treatment and everything else. However, research has shown that, in the long run, federal, provincial and territorial governments would save money. Instead of being expenditures, these are investments in our children.

I know every one of us in our ridings have families with children with autism. This is something that transcends all of us across the country. The member knows that in one out of every 166 births in our country a child is diagnosed with some form of autism, and it is increasing. We need to find out what causes autism, what we can do to prevent it from happening, if that is possible. We especially need to provide the care and the treatment they require.

On the fiscal argument, I would like the member to have a couple of more moments to indicate that this is really not an expenditure of dollars. It is an investment in some of the most beautiful children in the world.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the visitor GST rebate fund that was cancelled by the government, thus affecting our tourists, especially in regions of our country such as Atlantic Canada.

However, the one thing the government did not tell us is that approximately 100 jobs will be lost at the taxation office in Summerside because of it. It is funny how the government never mentioned that when it talked about it.

In Atlantic Canada we like the idea of having full time employment. What would the hon. member tell the employees who are about to lose their jobs if this thing continues?

[Point of Order, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I referred to a letter that was written on behalf of the now Prime Minister in response to a letter from an individual named Joyce Carter. For the benefit of my colleagues in the Conservative, Liberal and Bloc Québécois parties, I would like to table these documents so they can have access to and read what the Conservatives' leader said.

[Veterans Affairs, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple question.

Harold Shea of Halifax, an 83 year old war veteran, died the other day. We lose approximately 24,000 second world war and Korean war veterans every year in this country. They want to make sure, before they pass on, that their spouses are well taken care of by that government or any government.

Once again, this was a promise by the Prime Minister to a woman in Cape Breton who is representing thousands of widows in this country. This being Veterans Week, when will the government honour its promise and extend the veterans independence program to all widows of all veterans in this country?

[Veterans Affairs, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about accountability.

In October of last year a letter was written on behalf of the present Prime Minister to Joyce Carter of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. It states that “a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans” regardless of time of death.

My question is quite simple. When are these widows going to see the VIP extension?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I should tell my hon. colleague that I have quite a file on him in my own office from the days when he was a non-politician and corresponded regarding issues at Shearwater. I thank him very much for those efforts.

The veterans charter as he talked about was actually done by the previous government with wide based consultation of all parliamentarians and it was introduced into law by the current government. Both sides actually deserve a bit of credit for that.

There are many programs that have been left out of the charter, such as the deductibility of the assistance program and the clawback of the pensions. When a veteran becomes disabled and applies for Canada pension plan disability, it is actually clawed back from his superannuation. There is the veterans independence program. There are many things we need to improve on behalf of veterans and their families.