Christiane Gagnon

[Conservative Party, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, lobbyists and speculators from the Mulroney government era are doing well for themselves.

We have learned that former Conservative minister P.H. Vincent, a friend of the mayor of Terrebonne—himself a former Conservative member of Parliament—got his hands on municipal land that he promptly resold, making a tidy profit of $1.2 million.

Since an investigation has been requested in this matter, and since P.H. Vincent co-chaired the Conservatives' last election campaign, can the government assure us that Mr. Vincent does not hold any kind of position within the Conservative Party?

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I thank my NDP colleague for the kind words.

Next week is Veterans Week and we will be celebrating Remembrance Day. At that time, we always remember all those who have served our country, who have been proud to serve and, at the same time, who are mortified to be returning.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, that is another dimension of the issue. When they come back, they face many problems, many specific conditions. How can we help them better? There is another example of the helplessness of a veteran who comes back, who is confronted by every trauma experienced during combat, who is facing his physical and psychological conditions and who finds himself on the street. There is no question that those who return to the community after having been in combat need special status.

I was a bit emotional earlier. When my father came back from the war, he was suffering psychologically. He made it through, but he had to be strong to be able to live through everything he experienced during the war. There is a reason that those who served in the second world war—I never knew anyone who had fought in the 1914-1918 war—did not dare talk about how traumatic it was. There was practically a code of silence about what happened. They had to live with the horrors they saw on the battlefield and with what really happened.

I hope that all of the dimensions highlighted for the minister tonight will help him remember, the next time he is proposing new measures, that this human dimension is something that those returning from the front have to live with.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, it is rather sad to see the lack of responsibility being taken for our veterans and our soldiers. Earlier, I mentioned the contamination of the water in Shannon. The Department of National Defence knew that the water had been contaminated. Several decades went by and no one told the citizens and soldiers who kept drinking that contaminated water. This is similar to the agent orange situation. One of my cousins did not know that he had been in contact with such dangerous substances.

In the end, families are left to provide better support for our veterans, while we are abandoning them. We should cut down on a bit of the fanfare when they leave and we wish them all the glory in the world for Canada, especially since our involvement in Afghanistan. We pull out all the stops when they leave, but we must think about their return. Regardless of the seriousness of their injuries, when soldiers return from combat, they are never the same person. I am thinking of my father who, I am sure, was never the same man when he returned.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, we will definitely examine what the Minister of Veterans Affairs has to offer. I would ask him to consider why so many concerned people told the committee that we had to reverse the decision and go back to monthly payments rather than providing a lump sum payment.

When they return to Canada, not all injured veterans qualify for the minimum of $58,000 mentioned by the minister. When people familiar with the issues sign a petition, we realize that the way in which the injured are compensated is not all that matters. I know that Australia did the same thing. It had a charter that was similar to ours. It backtracked because it realized that the charter did not meet the needs.

We will examine the follow-up process that will take place over the next few months and years to determine if the new measures are of greater benefit to veterans. We must also consider mental health problems. As asked earlier, will they clear up the doubts and prove that these problems are directly related to military work in the theatre of operations?

Today, we are listening to the Conservative Party to determine what it has to offer. However, we must bear in mind that there are still shortcomings, as mentioned throughout this evening's debate. I would invite the minister to be very open-minded and to not think that these new measures are the ultimate solution for those who have been injured. We will be following this very closely.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Madam Chair, I hope that the debate will remain civilized and that we can all calm down.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening and I would like to thank the NDP for proposing this take-note debate on the impact of the veterans charter and what happens to veterans when they return from combat.

I wanted to speak today because I was involved in a petition signed by 6,000 people requesting a return to the lifetime monthly payment for injured service people. In talking to people who have been through that and families dealing with the reality of the lump sum payment, I discovered that it is not enough to meet the needs of injured service people.

The fate of our veterans is related to water contamination in Shannon, an issue I worked on for several months. A petition with 27,000 signatures called for compensation for veterans, service people and residents who lived on the Valcartier base and who were contaminated by TCE-tainted water for many years. If I have time later, I will talk about the impact of the Conservative government's lack of concern. Apparently, the Liberal government did not care either because the situation went on for several years. The water was tainted in the 1940s and 1950s.

I tabled in the House a petition signed by 6,000 people calling on the government to change the charter and reinstate compensation in the form of a monthly payment for injured service people. The new charter was adopted in 2006. We voted for that charter because we thought it would improve things for people injured in combat. We have since found out that the amount was too small and left too many people facing a bleak future with neither financial nor psychological resources.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that the lump sum payments range from $56,000 to $267,000, the latter being the maximum compensation payable. But what can a 20- or 30-year-old person who has lost both legs, who receives $267,000, who has no other source of income and who has to ensure his or her survival do? The burden usually falls on that person's parents. I met several of these people this past year.

I initiated this petition after meeting with Francine Matteau, a constituent of mine from Quebec City. Ms. Matteau's son injured both of his legs in 2007 when he was serving in Afghanistan. He had to have nine surgeries. He has constant pain in his ankles, and one leg is shorter than the other. His ankles are practically immobile. He has lost control, mobility and strength in both of his legs. He has difficulties holding a full-time job and no longer meets the army's requirements. If he had been wounded before the adoption of the new charter, he would have received $5,400 per month, instead of a lump sum payment of $100,000. In addition, we need to look at how we assess the injuries caused by a landmine in combat.

For someone who is 20, 21 or 22, who is returning seriously wounded and can no longer work, that is definitely not enough. That is what the majority of people I spoke to said. Elphège Renaud, the president of the Association des anciens combattants du Royal 22e Régiment de Valcartier is another example. He met 19 soldiers and told me that they were severely disabled. Most of them were penniless after having received the lump sum payment.

Earlier, much was said about the veterans' ombudsman, Patrick B. Stogran. He has also spoken out about this situation, and has called for the reinstatement of the monthly pension to prevent injured soldiers and their families from falling below the poverty line.

We do not understand why the mandate of the ombudsman, who cares about veterans, was not renewed. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that we should not expect an ombudsman's mandate to be automatically renewed. However, a three-year mandate as ombudsman is very short, when we want to uncover a system's weaknesses.

They are saying they are going to make changes and that they will be making announcements in the coming days, but we can still look at the impact of certain programs and measures.

Their refusal to renew the ombudsman's mandate proves that they are not sensitive to the urgency of the situation for several people who have been injured in combat. That is another Conservative habit. When they are told the truth, when someone dares to speak up and present reports, the Conservatives either hide them, or they completely ignore them.

Tonight's take note debate was not called by the Conservative Party, but rather by the NDP. The Bloc Québécois supported tonight's debate. We can see the Conservative Party's bad faith regarding how it really feels about improving the lives of our veterans.

Whoever replaces Mr. Stogran will have to redo everything he did over the past three years. If Mr. Stogran had been in the position for 20 years, we might understand why his contract was not renewed, but after just three years, something is not right.

Moving toward lump sum compensation means that Canada is refusing to recognize veterans and those coming home from Afghanistan with injuries. The government does not want to recognize them. If it had really wanted to, it would have left the ombudsman in his position—as he was for some time—so he could continue to further the cause of injured veterans and those with psychological needs, by offering them much more treatment than what is currently being offered.

It has been said that proof is required that the psychological injuries are work related. There is always a doubt. CFB Valcartier is very close to my riding. I have heard stories about painful and difficult situations, where people are left to fend for themselves because they are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

The veterans' ombudsman is concerned that Afghanistan will become our Vietnam if nothing is done. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said earlier that he will soon be announcing a few additional measures. Will these measures be sufficiently flexible, or less flexible? The former ombudsman could have looked into this, but I do not believe it was one of the minister's priorities.

Again according to Mr. Stogran, the adoption of the new veterans charter created two classes of veterans: those who served in the second world war and in the Korean War, and all the rest. I know what I am talking about because I am the daughter of a veteran. My father never received a pension for the injuries he got in combat when he served in Italy and in Normandy. I was very young at the time, but I remember taking a stand to show that my father had real injuries that caused him difficulties at the end of his life. He was denied compensation.

A debate like the one we are having this evening is beneficial and may encourage the minister to do something about the need to take better care of veterans. I can tell that he is sensitive to this issue. I know that he would like to improve certain conditions and life in general for veterans returning from combat.

We celebrate their bravery when they leave, but we have to do more than just commend them for their bravery. We have to take care of soldiers who return with multiple injuries and we have to take care of their families and their children.

[Access to Information, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, to justify censoring cabinet discussions about the Meech Lake negotiations, the Prime Minister's department is hiding behind section 14 and is saying that this information could be “injurious to the conduct of federal-provincial affairs”.

Can the government tell us what it is trying to hide? What is so serious that it could make relations between Quebec and Ottawa worse, as if that were even possible?

[Access to Information, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years after the failure of the Meech Lake accord, the Conservative government is still refusing to make public the federal cabinet documents and minutes from the Meech Lake accord negotiations, although the Access to Information Act would permit this.

Why is the government circumventing the law? What does it have to hide?

[Infrastructure, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's assurances that the deadline is still five months away, I should point out that some kinds of work are difficult to do in Quebec in the winter.

The federal government's obsession with red tape is putting one-third of Quebec's projects at risk. Quebec's municipalities could be on the hook for an extra $200 million because of the Conservatives' inflexibility.

When will the government extend the deadline for all of the projects?

[Infrastructure, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities once again demonstrated the federal government's arrogance when he said that Quebec was not providing enough information about progress on infrastructure projects. He said that he would grant the necessary extensions on a case-by-case basis if Quebec can provide justification.

Given that the economy needs stimulating, does the government realize that it makes no sense to put an end to infrastructure projects for bureaucratic reasons?