Robert Chisholm

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

At least say the word “veteran” once in a while.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is only intended to hold the government at its word.

Members opposite, including the minister, have spent some time today talking about how the cuts will not affect programs and services for veterans but that they will go forward with the cuts but do it through cuts to red tape and somehow mysteriously finding some savings.

All I want to do, and I think members in this chamber would agree, is ensure that we hold the government's feet to the fire. If it finds, through its operational strategic review, savings, it should ensure it goes directly to the programs and services for veterans so they are not affected.

Members opposite should put their money where their mouth is and get this done. We could then have a unanimous passage of the amendment.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister pats himself, his department and his government on the back, it flies in the face of the words of the veterans ombudsman in February 2012 who said that veterans were not being given adequate reason why their request for disability benefits was being turned down and that they were not getting timely and comprehensive services and programs.

That was not said by the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. That was said by an officer of this Parliament who is responsible for dealing with this issue on behalf of veterans. He has said, as did the previous ombudsman and as have auditors general, that the government was not up to snuff.

Even so, my amendment has said that if the government is convinced that it can get savings through operational review, then it should do it but ensure that the services and the programs for veterans in this country do not get cut.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to speak to an issue as important as this. I am somewhat intimidated to have to follow the member for Hamilton Centre, who speaks on issues as important as this with a level of passion to which we all should pay some attention.

I am pleased to speak in support of the motion that was introduced by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, which reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) honour the service of Canadian military and RCMP veterans and their families by committing to not cut Veterans Affairs Canada in the upcoming budget; and (b) provide programs and services to all military and RCMP veterans and their families in a timely and comprehensive manner.

I have been paying attention to the debate today and listening to members on the government side talk about how everything is fine. They are saying that there is going to be cuts, not to programs and services, but to red tape or to the bureaucracy and that this will not affect the services and programs. I find that hard to believe on a couple of levels.

First, 90% of the funding in Veterans Affairs Canada goes to programs and services. Therefore, if the government is going to cut that department by 5% to 10%, then I would like to see how it would do that without affecting programs and services.

Second, government members are arguing this point in a way to suggest that everything in the department right now is fine. We have heard my fellow colleague from Nova Scotia talk in the House repeatedly about the problems that our veterans are facing in trying to deal with this department. Again and again, cases come forward that are denied for no reason or there are non-sufficient reasons given. Senior veterans who are now in a frail condition need support and services, whether that be health care or otherwise, but they are either unable to get them or they are put through such a wringer of a process that it just adds to their burden.

It has been said by others much more eloquently than I that these are the women and men who have fought and served on behalf of our country and in defence of our country, democracy and the UN. They have made unbelievable contributions to Canada and to generations for many years. However, the government seems to be turning its back on them.

It is not just this government. This has been going on since 1998. The auditor general said first in 1998 that claims were being denied repeatedly without sufficient justification and that veterans were not getting the services and supports they deserved. Here we are in 2012, and it is continuing apace.

In February, Guy Parent, the Veterans Ombudsman, said in a new report that veterans were not being given adequate reason for why their requests for disability benefits were being turned down and that they were not getting timely and comprehensive services and programs.

We heard from the former ombudsman and auditors general. However, the problem continues to exist in our country.

I appreciate the members opposite getting up and talking with their hand over their heart about how much they support and believe in veterans and people who serve in the military and the RCMP, but that is not good enough. We need to do more than that. We need to work harder. We need to be committed to putting the money and resources in place for these men and women who the government has been quite prepared to send and put in harm's way in different parts of the world. These people have gone willingly and, in many cases, made the great sacrifice, and we are not prepared to support them and their families when they return. For that kind of commitment. I do not understand it. I cannot fathom it. it is wrong and we are trying to do everything we can to turn it around.

We have heard the government say that there are fewer veterans, that they are dying off. In fact, there are more veterans. The veterans are continuing. The government may remember that it dedicated women and men to fight in Afghanistan . Recently, the chief of army staff, Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, stated before a Senate committee on national defence that over 40,000 Canadian Forces members have deployed to Afghanistan since 2011. They have examined the situation and they have suggested that 30% of those people studied receive some form of mental health care, 8% of those were diagnosed with PTSD and a further 5% with some type of Afghan-related operational stress injury. What about those people? Do they not deserve support and services from the government? We need to do something. We need to take a stand in this House to ensure the government does the right thing. Its allies in the United States and in the U.K. have said that their veterans will not be subject to austerity.

I would suggest that if the government is so convinced that its red tape review will have the kind of effect that will recognize a savings, then it would be prepared to exempt this department and find the money elsewhere through those kinds of red tape.

I will talk about the kinds of services and the fact that services are not available. I have an 86-year-old constituent, David Kurts, who has been trying for two years to get services from the government and this department. This is somebody who has served in the navy, the merchant marines and the merchant navy, who has contributed to the public service, has been a contributor and has been denied services for two years. He, undoubtedly, will need to go before an appeal board to get any action. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is keeping an eye on this file as I will and we will try to ensure we get a positive resolve.

In light of the government's willingness to consider protecting some of this budget, I want to move the following motion, seconded by the member for Saint-Jean. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “should” and replacing them with the following:

honour the service of Canadian military and RCMP veterans and their families by: (a) committing to not cut Veterans Affairs Canada benefits in the upcoming budget; (b) committing every dollar identified through the Strategic and Operating Review of the department to programs and services for military and RCMP veterans and their families; and (c) providing programs and services to all military and RCMP veterans and their families in a timely and comprehensive manner.

[Financial Literacy, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the principle behind this motion brought forward by the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

There is no question that financial literacy is extraordinarily important for Canadians to be able to make fully informed decisions with regard to their financial futures. However, I would suggest that this motion is a half-hearted attempt by the government to move forward with an important initiative begun by the financial literacy task force, which brought down its report with recommendations two years ago. The best we have been able to get from the government after some considerable hard work and lobbying by the member for Edmonton—Leduc is a motion that talks about the government moving forward with good intentions. I would suggest, frankly, that it is not good enough.

We in this country are faced with a situation where the average family's debt load in the past 10 years has increased twice as fast as incomes, and three times as fast for older Canadians. It is important to bring that up because there is no question that understanding the rules of the road, the various financial vehicles, the terms and conditions of credit cards and various loans and mortgages, is important for all of us. At the moment, however, there is a situation in this country where older Canadians are experiencing debt levels at historic levels.

We have talked about this in the House over the past number of weeks and months, with the government contemplating extending the eligibility period for OAS from 65 to 67 years of age. I want to take this opportunity to bring to the government's attention the fact that seniors are already seriously struggling to make ends meet. There is an increasing number of seniors who, as a result of losing their jobs and of downsizing and poor health, are unable to work. The figures show that at the age of 62 there seems to be a bulge in the number of seniors finding themselves unemployed. They are piecing things together with credit cards and personal loans in trying to make ends meet until they reach the age of 65, when they are eligible for the Canada pension plan, GIS and old age security.

Understanding the implications of credit cards is not going to help those people because they are simply trying to cope. They are trying to keep their heads above water and maintain what they have. Being responsible contributors to their communities for their whole lives, they are not wanting to default or to go bankrupt, so they are trying to use every tool available to try to deal with their situation. This motion does not help them deal with that.

I absolutely support the intent of this motion to make available to Canadians, including to children and other Canadians throughout their lifelong trajectories, increased resources for financial literacy at all levels and to work with the provincial governments on that, et cetera.

However, we have to recognize in this House that there are some very critical problems at stake that make understanding the problems associated with debt levels more important than simply understanding their terms. On a matter like credit cards, if the government would do what the former leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, talked about for so many years and bring in a cap on credit card rates, that single action would do so much for seniors and average Canadians trying to make ends meet.

I want to talk about the financial literacy issue specifically as it relates to the fact that 50% of adult Canadians, according to the task force, struggle with simple tasks involving math and numbers. Therefore, when we talk about putting information on a website or about sending information out in pamphlets or putting it on billboards, we have to recognize that over 50% of Canadians are having basic literacy challenges as it is. That fact needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to the means by which we deliver information on financial literacy. Forty-two per cent of adult Canadians struggle with reading, and 20 per cent of Canadian households do not have access to the Internet. Not only are there problems with literacy but at least 20% of Canadians also do not even have access to computers or the Internet. This issue needs to be taken into account when we consider how to move forward with things like literacy programs.

When I began, I said that this was a weak attempt at implementing some important recommendations of the task force. I want to highlight a couple of things the government could be doing right now and should have done already. Here are a couple of key recommendations.

First is working with the provinces and territories to integrate financial literacy into all levels of our education system, including primary, secondary, post-secondary and adult learning curricula. That is key, and it has to start now and start young.

Second, the government should be implementing financial literacy through key programs that already exist, including EI, OAS, CPP, the youth employment strategy, the urban aboriginal strategy and the immigrant settlement and adaptation program. Those are areas where the government has contact with many Canadians, some of whom are Nova Scotians, and an opportunity for it to present information in clear language so that people are more likely to understand it. I get a chuckle from that when I think about the problems we have been dealing with at my office in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, from people struggling even to get access to some Service Canada offices and dealing with the EI and CPP backlog and the fact they are only getting a recording on the phone and are having trouble getting a response.

Third, the government should implement a financial literacy component to the Canada student loan program for students receiving funding.

Finally, the government should intensify efforts to raise awareness with regard to financial fraud among vulnerable Canadians.

Those are key recommendations that the task force came up with. The government could and should have been moving on these already. They are very specific strategies and I would urge the member who has moved this motion, which we support, to continue to work with his colleagues to ensure that very specific actions begin to take place on the important initiative begun by the task force and its findings.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for sharing her time with me. I also thank the member for Manicouagan for sponsoring this motion and the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for seconding it.

I am excited today with the commitment that our caucus has shown to this issue and that we brought it forward as an opposition day motion.

Today the finance critic and I met with the Minister of Finance to talk about the official opposition's priorities with respect to this budget. In our priorities we talked about this issue. We talked about education in first nation communities and how important it was that the government and all members of the House focus their attention on doing a better job of ensuring that young aboriginals would have equal access to not only education, but through education to employment opportunities throughout the country. I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister of Finance indicated that this was a problem, that he understood it and that he wanted to find a way to resolve it. As I understand it, the government has indicated it will support this motion. Therefore, that is some reason for optimism.

I am from Nova Scotia and I have seen some incredible progress being made by the first nations communities in Nova Scotia. There are 13 Mi'kmaw communities in Nova Scotia. Eleven of them are part of what is called Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, which is Mi'kmaw education. It is a partnership among the Mi'kmaw, the province and the federal government and has been in place since 1994. Some communities, like Eskasoni for example, have been working on the education issue going back to 1980. They and this partnership recognize how there are parties to this problem and they need to work together to come up with the solution. They have been making incredible progress. Whether it is on reserve or off reserve, the partners in Nova Scotia have been addressing aboriginal education in a way that is providing for hope and better futures for those aboriginal families and those children. This is the kind of solution that we need to look to in our country. I know there are other jurisdictions in British Columbia, with the Nisga'a, where real progress has made in matters with respect to aboriginal education.

If we are committed to doing it, we need to recognize the spirit of this resolution and the fact that this problem has been ignored for too long. We need to not find fault but find solutions and deal with the problem, and it may take resources. Members in this caucus have identified the fact that the level of education per student for aboriginal children is much lower than it is for other students, and that is not good enough. Therefore, we need to reinvest to ensure solutions are found, but we need to sit down together.

I am encouraged also by the fact that one of the movers and shakers in terms of Mi'kmaw education in the province of Nova Scotia, Chief Morley Googoo, is now a regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations and will be responsible for the education file for the assembly. We have reason for hope. Not only do we have the information now that has been provided by the panel and not only do we understand the problem, but we in the House need to bring our collective commitment to this problem.

We will push the government at every opportunity. It needs to recognize that it is its turn to step up to the plate, get out of the box and not look simply at the dollars but recognize that there is a problem. We talk about skills shortages, the economy and the aging population, but we recognize the fact that fastest-growing young population in the country is coming from aboriginal communities. We need to ensure those people have an opportunity to participate, as they will, in culturally-sensitive education programs so they can participate in our communities and we can build a stronger country.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on doing a great job.

The NDP caucus in 2010, and subsequently, brought forward some very substantive amendments to try to deal with the concerns that had been expressed by government members and people across the country. Would the member suggest that was a constructive way to deal with this situation and something to which the government should have paid attention?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague for her intervention in this debate. I want to focus on what she quoted Chief Blair as having said, as well as the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

We heard from members of the government that they have 12 police officers on their benches who support getting rid of the gun registry. That is all that really matters to them. We continue to bring forward people like Chief Blair and Chief Frank Beazley from Halifax. Yet the Conservatives keep saying that they are police officers and they know best.

Could the member comment on the fact that the government seems to be valuing the words of its own members rather than those of the tens of thousands of police officers across the country who do not agree with them?

[Government Services, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister and her colleagues are patting themselves on the back, my constituents Dartmouth—Cole Harbour are calling me to ask when the government will stop.

Transport Canada is cutting $22 million from aviation security and road safety. Citizen and Immigration Canada is slashing $60 million. Public Safety Canada is slashing $13 million. These are programs that directly affect Canadian families and yet the government is continuing to hack and slash.

Will the minister recognize the harm that these cuts are having, go back to the drawing board and back off Canadian families?

[Government Services, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, members on this side want the government to lay off Canadian taxpayers and stop cutting their services. That is what we want.

The government is hacking and slashing away at public services and it is Canadian families that are feeling the impact. There is a backlog at EI and people are not able to get through to Service Canada. It is Canadians who are beginning to feel the impact.

We want the government to back off, to recognize what it is doing to Canadians and to reconsider what it is doing.