Peter Stoffer

[Federal Accountability Act, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The people of Vancouver Kingsway, of Kings—Hants, of Newmarket—Aurora and many others, who have been betrayed by their members of Parliament who crossed the floor during their term of office, do not believe the government is serious when it comes to accountability. How can we have accountability when members are not responsible to the people who elect us?

Will the Prime Minister include the aspect of floor crossing legislation in this accountability package?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it took the Liberals 12 years to develop that form of arrogance. It took the Prime Minister and his government 12 days to do that.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great day in the country when the leadership of Premier Gary Doer of Manitoba brings a real accountability package to members of Parliament, in their case, members of the legislature, when it comes to responsibility to their constituents.

This little blue package contains nothing about floor crossing by members of Parliament going from one party to another during their term in office.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why was this very important aspect of democracy left out of his accountability package?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, according to the member from P.E.I., the world is wonderful, but some farmers, fishermen, forestry workers and shipyard workers would beg to differ.

Will he assist the NDP and the Bloc to push the Conservative government to move forward the shipbuilding policy, which has been sitting on the desk of the industry minister since April 2001?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member from Edmonton on his victory in the election. He and I have corresponded for many years on issues of the military. While I have the floor, if he could put a word in to his defence minister for the future of the Shearwater air base, I and many others would greatly appreciate it.

My question is quite simple. He asked for unequivocal support for the troops in the mission in Afghanistan. He has it in spades. Rhetoric will not solve the problems in Afghanistan. What this country requires and what Canadians require are clear facts. Regarding the future debates coming up in the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, the defence committee and in this Parliament as well, having debate is never a sin. Having facts put on the table and discussions involving all parties in order to advance this issue for the betterment of all Canadians so they could have clear information, as my colleague from Yukon said, would be very helpful.

Would the member commit his party to presenting those clear facts in the future so that all Canadians can continue the debate on this very important mission, and show the troops and most importantly their families back home that we truly do care and we would like to move this issue forward?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, talk about confusion. The Conservatives have a lot to answer for. I wonder what the public safety minister would say if someone said that we needed to talk about withdrawal, about costs, about the mission, about a possible vote and about bad morale of the troops, if we had a debate in the House.

I remind the hon. member that those words came from the Conservatives, not the New Democratic Party. If there is confusion on anyone's part, I suggest they look in the mirror and try to clarify this for Canadians.

However, that kind of rhetoric will not solve the concerns we have in Afghanistan. I have a very serious question for the public safety minister. The previous Liberal government, when we were serving in the Balkans, took an awful lot of money out of the capital defence budget and moved it into operations thus starving the military of equipment purchases.

My question is for the hon. member who is in cabinet. What is the government doing about the financing of this mission in Afghanistan and any future involvement that we might have? Where is the money coming from? Is it coming from the capital expenditures of the military or is it new moneys so we do not starve our military in terms of training and equipment purchases for the future? Could he give us at least us an estimate of the financial cost of our mission in Afghanistan?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I want to answer the question the Conservatives have been asking all day. The answer is yes, I support the mission and the troops in Afghanistan and so does my party, but I take great umbrage to the party over there that reflects in its connotations that the NDP does not support our troops because the NDP asks questions.

What is really bad for the morale of our troops is quite clear. I have attended recently the funerals of four people in my own riding. They were for Mr. Nathan Smith, Mr. Richard Green, Mr. Braun Woodfield and Mr. Paul Davis. They were fine, young Canadian soldiers who gave their lives for our country. As a person who was born in Holland and whose parents were liberated by the Canadian military, I take great offence to anyone who questions my or my party's love and support for our troops and their families.

The reality is we have a democratic right in a responsible democracy to ask questions. All we did is ask the exact same questions the defence minister asked in November. The foreign affairs minister said three weeks ago that a debate in the House would cause disrepute and a loss of morale among our troops. Three days ago he said a debate would be very good for our troops.

In 2004, when in opposition, the Prime Minister said that if there is a change in the mission, if there is a change in treaties, or if there is a change in deployment in time he would bring that discussion to the House for a vote. All the NDP has done is give back to the Conservative government exactly what it said in opposition. If military personnel operate inconsistently in the field, it means people will lose their lives. What we are asking the government for is consistency in language and in debate.

The questions are not easy. They are very difficult for anybody in the House to answer. The member raised a very valid point not just about Afghanistan but about the entire region. What is the government doing in terms of ascertaining concerns with Pakistan, China, India and other countries in the region? Those countries play a very important role in the future of our deployments there.

We are basically asking that if the deployment is extended past February of next year that the issue come back to the House for a debate and approval, which is exactly what the Conservatives when they were in opposition said they would do.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. Sir, with the permission of the House, seeing how we have the foreign affairs minister here and we have such an important debate tonight, I wonder if you could seek unanimous to have five more minutes of questions and comments for the opposition so we can comment and question the foreign affairs minister on this very important and crucial debate.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, has the Bloc given any consideration to the concern about land mines? As members know, our current military will not confirm or deny the use of land mines in the effort in Afghanistan. As they also know, the Government of Canada has signed a land mines treaty banning, eradicating and getting rid of land mines on this planet.

Would the member not see a possible contradiction in our foreign policy on that issue? What would he advise the government that we should do in this regard?

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, April 10th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (elimination of deduction from annuity).

Mr. Speaker, this is a repeat of a bill I introduced in 2004. The bill would stop the clawback of the pensions of those military and RCMP officers, who serve our country so well, at age 65. As the House knows, when those people reach the age of 65 their Canada pension is clawed back from their superannuation. As well, those who become disabled have their CPP disability clawed back from their superannuation.

We think that is wrong. These people serve our country with gallantry and with great effort and we think it is time that we left a little more money in their pockets when they retire at 65.

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