Bill C-58 (Historical)

Support for Veterans and Their Families Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to
(a) add a purpose statement to the Act;
(b) improve the transition process of Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life by allowing the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make decisions in respect of applications made by those members for services, assistance and compensation under the Act before their release from the Canadian Forces and to provide members and veterans with information and guidance before and after their release;
(c) establish the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years;
(d) establish the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump-sum compensation for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability; and
(e) establish the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver’s support.
The enactment also amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act as a consequence of the establishment of the critical injury benefit.

Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate brought by my colleague today, because it highlights one of our most important duties as parliamentarians. As I have said in debates in this place, before Canada sends our men and women into harm's way, whether it is fighting ISIS or in other deployments, decisions related to the Canadian Armed Forces, those Canadians who serve us, are perhaps the most important decisions, debates, and questions we have as parliamentarians.

We should be very deliberative and thoughtful in our decisions with respect to deploying our military. We need to apply that same deliberate, compassionate, and honest approach in how we treat those men and women who come back with a variety of service injuries.

Unfortunately, in the last decade-plus, there has been a lot of rhetoric with respect to veterans' issues and veterans' care, but very little deliberate language trying to explain and understand how we best provide for our men and women. They are often used as political tools and I want to see that end, so I am going to devote most of the time I have for my remarks today to setting the record straight. Even some of the language I see from the minister's office shows he does not understand how programs and services are delivered to the people he serves, the same with people in his office. I hope they are tuning in.

I am also going to try to take a balanced look at the new veterans charter, and why, as minister, I tried to improve it, fix the problems, fill in the gaps, as opposed to making irresponsible promises that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, in the last campaign, either did not understand, did not cost, or did not care whether they fulfilled them. I certainly hope it is not the last one of those reasons. I certainly hope not. I think, at a bare minimum, all politicians, when talking about care for those who serve us, have to have honesty and respect underlying all of our comments, all of our promises, and all of our commitments.

We hear a lot about quotes from our past with respect to our obligation. I have often talked about the Royal Canadian Legion, and once a Liberal member mocked me for suggesting the Legion has a role, but the Legion has been serving veterans far longer than Veterans Affairs Canada. In fact, they were given a mandate to help veterans and help commemoration through an act of Parliament in this place in 1926. They still, in many ways, are at the forefront in their 1,400 locations across the country, where each branch has a veterans' service officer.

I want to start my remarks by saying, veterans started taking care of veterans first, and they still do. I spoke with many of them on the Hill today, because they are trying to take care of their comrades and in some cases, themselves. As I said, we owe them honesty and respect. That is why we are having this debate today. The Prime Minister has not provided honesty or respect in all of his commitments with respect to veteran pensions and veteran care.

We saw that first-hand two weeks ago in Edmonton, where an injured veteran asked him about his commitments, and the Prime Minister told that veteran that he was, in many ways, asking for more than the government could give. However, he was only asking for the Prime Minister to live up to his promise.

Let us talk about this pension for life charade from Christmastime. Even in the minister's own remarks, he suggests building upon programs in place. That was one of his responses. Many of the programs put in place where put in place by ministers of the Paul Martin government, when they started the new veterans charter. Then under the Harper government, we modified and enhanced benefits, including in my time.

When I introduced Bill C-58 in the last Parliament, which outlined a number of new enhancements, new benefits for veterans after direct consultation with veterans, I embedded into that legislation language with respect to the just and appreciation and the obligation we had to our veterans. This comes from a 1917 quote from Sir Robert Borden given to our men overseas who were injured in and around the campaigns of 1917.

Yesterday, Liberal members voted down a private member's bill put forward by my colleague from Barrie to enshrine that sacred obligation, that enhanced social covenant, that we owe to our citizens who we ask to serve with the risk of unlimited liability. That is why our veterans are in court. That is why they are asking for such a covenant. Their comrades in the United Kingdom have it. I is talked about it in Bill C-58.

One of the members from British Columbia brought forward an opposition day motion on it in the last Parliament. I am quite sure the Prime Minister voted for it then as third party leader. He whipped his members to vote against it yesterday, even though I know a lot of those members deeply care, including some who are in the House now. I wish their voices would be heard in their caucus, because right now veterans do not feel they are getting honesty and respect from the Liberal government.

We often quote Sir Robert Borden, who happens to have been my favourite prime minister because of his leadership during the Great War and the toll it took on him.

Here is a quote from a veteran who died 100 years ago, Talbot Papineau. Ironically the Prime Minister is also the member of Parliament for Papineau, but he is referred to as Prime Minister because he leads the government. Everyone in the House has a right to speak as members of Parliament.

The Papineau family, going back to Talbot Papineau's grandfather, has been so important for Quebec life that the Prime Minister now represents a riding named after the Papineau family. The Prime Minister also played Talbot Papineau, the Great War soldier, on television, so there is a direct connection there.

What did Talbot Papineau say to his troops days before he died in the Battle of Passchendaele? He said, “For those who have been disabled, who cannot carry on the good fight — it is certainly for us to see that they want for nothing.” He died on the day his regiment lost six of its junior officers on one of the worst days of fighting in Passchendaele. We honour Passchendaele. I know the parliamentary secretary was in Passchendaele.

The Prime Minister needs to do more than just act in the form of Talbot Papineau. He needs to live up to those words. This debate is about that. The fact that he whipped his members to vote against this concept yesterday is troubling.

We do owe a special, a sacred, a profound obligation to those who are injured while serving us. That is why the Conservative Party has brought this opposition day forward today. Veterans heard the Prime Minister of Canada, in my view, disrespect a veteran with his response in Edmonton because that veteran was asking the Prime Minister to live up to his promises.

Where did the Liberal government go wrong with veterans in its first two years? It boils down to two central pledges in the Liberal campaign. I was still veterans affairs minister during the campaign. During the 2015 campaign, unions were paying people to protest in front of my office. I was still trying to help veterans in need.

I remember very well when the Prime Minister, then third party leader, leader of the Liberal Party, had a rally not far from CFB Trenton in Belleville. The party flew in its star veteran candidates. The Minister of National Defence was there. The parliamentary secretary for U.S. relations was there. The parliamentary secretary for transport was there, all wearing medals, all behind the Prime Minister. It was very impressive form, very impressive people individually..

The Prime Minister said two things in those remarks that day. He said that he would never allow a circumstance where the Government of Canada forced veterans into court to be heard in their fight for benefits. He also made a commitment that day to return to the Pension Act, not make up a modified pension for life, which even the minister admits only 10% or so of people will see any enhancement whatsoever. He made a commitment to return to what veterans know as the old system, the Pension Act, where everyone got a pension for life.

I never made that promise as minister because the old act had inherent problems with it. Many people forgot that. My old friend, Peter Stoffer, the long-time critic for the NDP, agreed with me that the old system had problems and we had to fix the new system, the new veterans charter, because it was based on overall wellness of the veterans and their families. Honesty is not making a promise one will likely not keep.

Then there was the court decision. I have not told the House this before, but I will inform members of it today. I think the people involved with Equitas would be okay with my talking about this level of disclosure.

The previous Government of Canada, and I was minister at the time, and the Equitas veterans, who were in court because of their frustration, built a level of trust. As a veteran myself and with veterans on my team, I hired a new lawyer. I replaced the Department of Justice lawyer who had brought an argument suggesting in a pretrial motion that the Government of Canada owed no special duty to our veterans. I found that repugnant as a lawyer, as a parliamentarian, and as a veteran. We learned from the Equitas veterans. The family caregiver benefit, the retirement income security benefit, all the benefits the Liberals are now renaming and trying to claim as their own, a lot of them came from advice I received, and we virtually had Equitas settled. Why was it not settled? Because the Liberals dangled the promise of a return to the old Pension Act.

I said that if that was indeed the promise, I could not meet it. I asked whether we could turn our settlement into an abeyance agreement, or at least call time out on the litigation. I told the veterans that if they trusted the Liberals and wanted to go with that deal, as their friend now and not just as minister, I would respect that. I had told Prime Minister Harper at the time that we were close to settling Equitas. I looked at it as a failing of mine. Why did it fail? Because a promise was made, a deception was sown, and the Liberals need to take accountability for it.

I would much rather the Minister of Veterans Affairs admit that the Liberals have broken their promise than to dress it up in a press conference a few days before Christmas. It was shameful. They should step up and say they cannot meet their promise.

The Prime Minister in his town hall in Edmonton basically admitted the government could not afford it. Why did he promise it? We are looking at a return to the old system, a cost to the federal government of somewhere between $20 billion and $35 billion. That is because the old system wanted veterans to just quickly go on a pension. It was not about wellness. It was not about transition. If veterans had an operational stress injuries under the old system and because with mental health injuries they could have good times and bad times and they could respond to treatment, they did not get a permanent disability of 100% a lot of the time. If they were assessed at a 40% disability, they had a pension for life that committed them to poverty, or addiction, or family break-up or homelessness.

That is why the old system does not work. We need to focus on the wellness. For those who cannot transition, because of physical or mental injuries, give them lifetime financial support. I did that as minister, with the retirement income security benefit, with the critical injury benefit, with enhancements to PIA, all the things the Liberals are building on now, to ensure the moderate to severely injured, who could not transition, were supported for life. All Canadians want to see that.

Here is what is wrong with the Liberal system. The Liberals throw this number around, which I know they do not even understand. They said they spent $10 billion on veterans. That is not true. Some of that is accrual accounting, and they are not even forthright on it. It is not a cash accounting spend. It is an accrual. It is a commitment of the federal government to maintain a lifelong benefit. I would like them to break that $10 billion down into how much is in accrual accounting and how much is cash out the door. We will know in a couple of years when lapses in public accounts come in. The reckoning is coming. Why can they not just be forthright?

Here is what was not smart about the government's first act. The retroactive top-up of the disability award was very bad public policy. Every dollar I had from the treasury, working with Prime Minister Harper at the time, I wanted to go to the moderately to severely injured and their families, those who were struggling. The vast majority of the $2 billion or so the Liberals spent retroactively topping up the lump sum went to people with disability assessments in the 13% range. They spent at least a billion dollars on hearing loss. If they were more forthright, I would know exactly how much. Those funds should have put toward families.

Expand the permanent impairment allowance and give family caregiver benefits to everyone on PIA. That is where I was going. That would be sound policy because those are the people who have had trouble transitioning. Those are the people Talbot Papineau, 100 years ago, said, “it is certainly for us to see that they want for nothing.”

I know veterans with lower level injuries, such as musculoskeletal and hearing. Some of them go on to work on Bay Street, or in government, or are deputy ministers. Do they need the transitional support? Generally, not. Therefore, any funds should go to the ones who need it.

To say I am profoundly disappointed to be having to debate this here today is an understatement. As I stated at the outset, the two things that veterans deserve are honesty and respect. They did not get that.

If the Prime Minister wants to show those things, he should admit he did not understand the cost of his pension promise, instead of suggesting the veteran in Edmonton was asking for too much. The Prime Minister did not know what he promised. That is shameful. He should admit that.

The other thing he should do is meet with the Equitas veterans. They are wonderful people. They have served us. I know a lot of the Liberal MPs have met them and like them. Why is he forcing them to go to the Supreme Court of Canada? I agreed with his promise. Veterans should not have to face off against their government in court. He is making them do that. The lawyers from the Justice Department, who I removed from the case, he reappointed. They went back to their old argument that we had stopped them from making.

This is about owning leadership. Leadership is not just photographs, or as the Prime Minister suggested to the Ethics Commissioner, he is like a networker-in-chief for Canada. He owes it to the veterans of our country to tell them why he has broken his promises on a return to a pension for all injured, and for returning Equitas veterans to court. Until I see responsibility from the Prime Minister and the minister, the Conservatives will continue to fight in this place for those who serve us.

[Walter Callaghan]

The initial part works out to $2,050 a month, 75% of the old deemed salary of $2,700. That's coming from SISIP. The increase as a result of Bill C-58 brought reservists up to the equivalent of corporal basic, the base minimum that regular force personnel get. There was an argument between SISIP and Veterans Affairs over who would handle that. SISIP refused. VAC decided, okay, you guys are now eligible for ELB, on top of your SISIP, to top you up to this amount.

There's some really funny stuff going with the numbers. It's a problem also for reservists and it's been going on, and I just mentioned the deemed salary aspect. I do not know a single reservist who is getting paid the rank equivalency. All of us are being paid, regardless of our rank, as corporal basic, which in some cases can be a difference of thousands of dollars per month.

[Walter Callaghan]

Sometimes it's yearly, sometimes it's every few years. Because I'm a reservist, this is a whole other complicated ball game that I don't know if I'll have time to get into, the way that our benefits are done. Because I was permanently injured, I'm still on SISIP, but because of the changes that occurred last year with Bill C-58 and Bill C-59 , I'm also receiving financial benefits from VAC. Because I was deemed permanently injured, the provision of stuff like psychotherapy or the approval for psychotherapy, massage therapy, physiotherapy, all those go through VAC. So I'm receiving annual documents from SISIP, much like Paul Franklin being told that he must prove he has no legs anymore. In my case, I'm having to prove that I still have a demon haunting every living moment, and my back injury is still here.

With VAC, the package I got this morning contained the documents for the two-year mandatory review of permanent status. My original classification as permanently disabled with VAC occurred in 2012-13, so it's not even two years. There's a discrepancy on when they're sending out documents, but because I was removed from the rehab program, to maintain my weekly massage therapy and physiotherapy, both of which are used for pain management, and the biweekly psychotherapy, we're having to submit documents every four to six months saying I'm still injured, I still need this help. It is getting ridiculous.

[Kimberly Davis]

Well, that's the question. If you go back and look at the list, how many of us have been witness to these meetings? How many more meetings do we have to be witness to?

Last year, I was flown up there. I sat in front of the committee and told them my story. I told them the stories of families that were going through situations similar to the ones my family was going through, if not worse ones. What are we supposed to do?

Then I was asked to comment on Bill C-58 for the committee. I drew up a report and submitted it electronically to the committee. I never heard anything about it. I never heard why it wasn't considered. Why did we still end up getting the $7,200 family caregiver relief benefit when it was broken down? Why are we doing algebraic equations for a retirement income security benefit?

You are asking veterans, some of whom can't fill out applications because just reading one question sets them off, to calculate an algebraic equation as to what they are going to get when they are 65. How does that make sense?

That's not to mention my algebraic equation if my husband passes, and what I might get. Well, first you have to calculate 75% of this, minus this, plus this, and oh, then divided by this. Really? It doesn't make sense. Why can we not make this stuff simple? It is not rocket science. It is not brain surgery. It is taking care of the veterans that this country sent overseas to give us our rights and freedoms. Why does it have to be so difficult?

Dana was talking about her 10, 20, and 80 sessions. I go through that every 20 sessions with my husband. His physiotherapist, his chiropractor, his massage therapist.... This is all for pain management. The pain is never going away. It is management. He goes through his granted 20 sessions in the first part of the year. He is going to two to three appointments a week. Well, how long do 20 sessions last if you are going to two to three appointments a week? They might last seven to 10 weeks in a 52-week period. The providers have to complete five to eight extension requests in order to properly treat their veteran.

A year ago, I asked the department to review my husband's paramedicine file, look at how many physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage therapy sessions he has gone through in the last three years, and please grant him the amount that would help him manage his pain instead of having this break in treatment.

I know exactly what Dana is going through, because I go through this frustration with my husband every seven to 10 weeks.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to allow more of my colleagues to speak out loud and clear in the House and to give a voice to the people of their respective ridings, I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Indeed, we have to share our time, because once again the Conservatives are resorting to two of their old habits, which are both equally atrocious, namely gag orders and omnibus bills in which they put absolutely anything and everything.

By introducing Bill C-59 as an omnibus bill, they are forcing us to answer yes or no to a whole series of measures that are often unrelated to one another. For example, I could say that I support the home renovation tax credit, which is in this budget, but at the same time, how could I possibly say yes to income splitting, which is tailor-made for the rich? Both of those examples deal with measures related to the economy and have their place in a budget, I think.

At the end of the day, I could take stock, weigh the pros and cons, and then decide. However, I will provide a few other examples to give us a taste and allow those watching us to understand the inconsistencies of such an approach.

For example, I could very easily say yes to the lower tax rate for SMEs in the budget. What is more, that measure is based on one that was proposed by the NDP, although it extends over a longer period of time. We wanted to do things more quickly, knowing that small and medium size businesses were the backbone of the Canadian economy and that the sooner we supported them, the sooner we would promote job creation. However, voting in favour of this measure in Bill C-59 would also mean voting in favour of hijacking the bargaining process with public servants, which is also included in the bill. I simply cannot do that.

I could certainly vote in favour of the new veterans charter, which had its own bill number, Bill C-58, if memory serves me correctly. Why are we not voting on Bill C-58 and Bill C-59 separately? If this is not playing politics, then I do not know what is. In order to vote in favour of the new veterans charter, I would have to also vote for retroactive changes to access to information legislation.

None of these things—veterans, the Access to Information Act, or the bargaining process with public servants—have anything to do with the budgetary process.

As I said earlier, Bill C-59 contains a few positive measures. For example, it improves support for caregivers. However, this measure comes in response to many concerns that were raised by the NDP, again, during this Parliament and the previous Parliament. Except for a few miserly measures, this budget does nothing for the Canadian economy. Budget 2015 ignores the middle class and posts a false surplus at the expense of the most vulnerable and our public services.

The Minister of Finance boasted that because the government is a good economic manager, it was posting a surplus of $1.4 billion. The surplus is nothing more than an accounting trick. In reality, the Conservatives helped themselves to $2 billion from the employment insurance fund, dipped into the federal fund for natural disasters and sold its General Motors shares at bargain basement prices. Thus, this election budget comes at the expense of unemployed workers and other Canadians.

As I mentioned, the 2015 budget forgets all about middle-class workers and is detrimental to the Canadian economy. Let us start with the budget's tax measures. More and more studies by well-known economists show that income-splitting and increasing the TFSA contribution limit are unfair and ineffective policies.

For those watching who are not familiar with income splitting, a couple could split up to $50,000 in income thereby reducing their total income and rate of taxation.

With that in mind, let us take the example of single-parent families, which represent one in three families in Quebec. Whom do these families split their income with? We can see right away that this measure becomes less and less attractive.

According to the economists at the C. D. Howe Institute, which, I imagine, must be a very left-leaning organization, only 15% of families could take advantage of this program. Which 15%? The families where there is a huge difference in the income of the spouses. The income gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and this measure would really benefit those families where one spouse has a substantially higher income than the other. Some studies have shown that this might be an incentive for the other spouse not to work outside the home. More often than not, the woman is the person who stays home.

I remind members that the former finance minister was highly critical of this idea and recommended that it not be supported. What is the cost of this tax measure? It will cost the federal government $2 billion a year.

How will the Minister of Finance recover that $2 billion? The answer is quite simple, and members need only take a look at the EI fund to see that the $2 billion given to the wealthiest Canadians has been taken out of the EI premiums paid by workers and employers.

Since the Conservatives are nothing if not consistent as managers and insist on making this a budget for the wealthy, this budget increases the TFSA limit to $10,000. Most of my constituents have a hard time maxing out their RRSP. Imagine putting $5,000 in a TFSA.

The measure in itself is not a bad one. However, the people who benefit when we double the limit are those who have very good incomes and who are among the wealthiest of our society. Furthermore, the financial cost of this increase will double over the next four years and reach $13.5 billion by 2030.

Of course we had concerns about the impact of that financial burden on future generations. The Minister of Finance may also have given a moment's thought to future generations when he made the following statement.

He simply said, “Why don't we leave that to [the] Prime Minister['s] granddaughter to solve that problem?” Let us just keep shovelling the pile forward until we hit a wall.

I could go on and on about employment insurance. If barely 39% of the people who contribute manage to collect benefits when bad luck strikes, that means there is a problem with the way the employment insurance fund is managed.

The NDP proposed measures that should be in the budget but are not: getting rid of income splitting, which costs us $2 billion; developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle structural youth unemployment and underemployment; offering a hiring and training tax credit to help businesses create jobs for Canadian youth; and abolishing the appalling employment insurance reform. I could go on.

The New Democratic Party's proposals will be in its platform and will enable all Canadians to choose a better government that listens to their needs and has a clear vision for development that will leave no member of society behind. That will happen on October 19.

Between now and then, I invite the majority of MPs in the House of Commons to vote against this way of doing business that involves repeated use of time allocation and omnibus bills that purport to fix all of the world's problems with a single yes or no.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise in the House to speak at third reading stage of Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015 act, No. 1.

At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence, on his first budget, a very comprehensive budget, one that I am very proud to be a member of a team and a government to support in the House. I wish him well for many more balanced and successful budgets in the future.

This bill would legislate key elements of economic action plan 2015, which include measures to support jobs and growth, help communities prosper and ensure the security of Canadians. The bill also includes the measures that were contained in Bill C-57, the support for families act, and Bill C-58, the support for veterans and their families act.

However, perhaps the most significant part of the bill is that it would return Canada to a balanced budget and would enshrine in law balanced budget legislation reflecting our government's responsible fiscal management policy, which is creating jobs and putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians. A balanced budget allows the Government of Canada to cut taxes further for Canadian families, individuals and businesses.

My riding of Mississauga—Streetsville has the second highest number of families with children living at home in all of Canada. That is why our government's family tax cut and benefits plan really hits home in my community.

Our government will increase the universal child care benefit for children 6 and under to $160 per month, and extend the benefit for children aged 7 to 17 by $60 per month. This initiative puts thousands of dollars a year back into the pockets of families in my riding, and allows parents to make their choices for their children on how that money will be spent. It is important to note that the increase to the UCCB is retroactive to January 1, 2015 and that the new benefit will start to flow for families this July.

Further, our government is instituting a family income-splitting program that would allow a higher income spouse to, in effect, transfer $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket, effective for the 2014 tax year. Some families would save as much as $2,000 a year in total family tax paid, yet another example of how we are putting more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian families.

Economic action plan 2015 would also increases the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000, effective for the 2015 tax year. The maximum amounts that can be claimed will increase to $8,000 from $7,000 for children under age 7, to $5,000 from $4,000 for children aged 7 to 16, and up to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the disability tax credit.

Millions of Canadians have taken advantage of the very popular tax-free savings account. TFSAs are an excellent way for Canadians to save tax free and have that money available in the future for their personal needs. Many Canadians have maxed out at the old $5,500 a year limit, and many would contribute more if allowed. I am very pleased to report that economic action plan 2015 would raise the maximum contribution limit to $10,000, effective in 2015 and subsequent years.

Bill C-59 would also reduce the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds to permit seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings to better support their retirement income needs.

The bill would also create the home accessibility tax credit to assist seniors and disabled Canadians offset renovation costs to make their homes safer and more accessible so they could live independently and remain in their homes.

Mississauga—Streetsville is home to many seniors who tell me they want to age gracefully in place, remain in their cherished home as long as possible and be able to make modifications to improve their living conditions. The home accessibility tax credit is welcome news in my community.

Branch 139 of the Royal Canadian Legion is located in the village of Streetsville. I am a member and I visit the legion regularly to support its initiatives. I have met with veterans there and I was honoured to present World War II “V” pins to dozens of these brave Canadians. That is why I am pleased economic action plan 2015 would ensure that veterans and their families receive the support they need by providing a new retirement income security benefit to moderately and severely disabled veterans. It would expand access to the permanent impairment allowance for disabled veterans and would create a new tax-free family caregiver relief benefit to recognize the very important role of caregivers.

This government values and supports the brave women and men who have served in our Canadian Forces and we will ensure that our veterans get the full support they need and deserve.

During pre-budget consultations and meetings, I had the opportunity to meet with groups like ALS Society of Canada, the MS Society of Canada and others about the compassionate care benefit provided under the employment insurance system.

Bill C-59 would extend compassionate care benefits from the current six weeks of coverage to six months to better support Canadians caring for gravely ill and dying family members. This change would benefit thousands of families across Canada when they need the financial and emotional support the most.

The bill would also implement very important measures for supporting jobs and growth. Our government would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, lowering taxes for job-creating small businesses and their owners by $2.7 billion between now and 2019-20. This is very good news for members of the Streetsville Business Improvement Association and other companies operating in Mississauga—Streetsville. Predictable lower taxes each and every year is an important signal to the small business community.

Recently, I have had the opportunity to announce several investments in Mississauga, through the Federal Economic Development Corporation of Southern Ontario. These strategic investments assist leading edge companies grow and expand, create new high-wage jobs, and contribute to research and innovation.

Economic action plan 2015 would see the budget deficit reduced from $55.6 billion during the height of the recession and now with a $1.4 billion projected surplus. All Canadians should be thanked and should be proud for their hard work and their support of this government as we return Canada to balanced budgets.

I ask all members of the House to carefully read Bill C-59 and the important initiatives contained within it, and to rise to support the bill so we can continue to ensure Canada is strong, proud and free.

[Bradley K. White]

I, too, grew up with veterans. My grandfather was a company commander in Dieppe. He served with Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt, who received the Victoria Cross for his actions in Pourville. I knew Mr. Merritt when I was a young lieutenant, and I listened to his stories, so I know them well.

We all hope that what we're doing here is serving our veterans and making their lives better. That's why we do this. We're not politicians. That's why when we address you, we address you collectively as the government, regardless of what party you belong to.

As was mentioned, Robert Borden said years ago that it's the obligation of the government to look after those they send away to serve. We in the legion believe very much that it's the government's obligation to do that. You are all government to us. So our position is to advocate on behalf of those veterans to make sure that after they've served, they're looked after, to make sure that they have a healthy and productive life after they've been injured. That is our aim.

Is it incremental? Yes, it's incremental. But remember, 2006 and Bill C-55 in 2011 were the first steps to improve and breathe some life into the charter. We now have some more incremental steps in Bill C-58, which have been incorporated into Bill C-59, to do that again. We won't stop pushing. We said that in our statement.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

When the minister appeared at this committee, and direct questions were directed on Bill C-58, that information is available on a link. I think it was very pertinent because all members of all parties asked some very tough questions, and I thought the minister's answers were extremely good.

Do any of you make that information available to your members or, again, are you expecting that it's the role of the government?

I'll ask that of Mr. Mac Culloch first.

[Bradley K. White]

I suppose we'll start it off. Thank you for the question.

I'll answer in English.

One of the issues we have is that in 2006, when the new Veterans Charter came in, it came in as a living document. We didn't see any life in the document until 2011, when we had Bill C-55. When it came in it actually put something back into the new Veterans Charter. That was a start.

Bill C-58, now incorporated in this Bill C-59, is another start, we believe, in making the changes necessary to the new Veterans Charter, to make it a document that's alive, that's living, that's meeting the needs of the veterans at this time.

There will be more needs for veterans as we go down into the future. Bill C-59 does not fix all the issues or gaps in the new Veterans Charter right now. It's a start, and we're positive that this start will keep going. We want to see more. The new Veterans Charter has to continue to evolve to meet the needs of the veterans.

Wayne has indicated that PTSD is the tip of the iceberg at this stage of the game. It is the tip of the iceberg. Latent onset of PTSD is going to happen. We have not seen the full extent of what's going to happen with the mental illness problems we have out there on the street right now. We're going to have to take the steps necessary to address those in the future.

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment to veterans and their families over the last four months, as we have rolled out new benefits, new improvements, many of which members like the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore recommended as part of the standing committee last year. When these benefits were rolled out, they were criticized, suggesting there would be delays on it. Therefore, we are moving to ensure I keep my commitment by putting it in the budget implementation act.

When the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked for unanimous consent of Bill C-58, it was after the budget implementation act had already been earmarked to go before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for debate. Unfortunately, that member and the NDP continue to be several steps behind and continue to play a little politics on these issues.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his service to the Canadian Armed Forces. He said that he would like to pass this before Parliament rose and yet he had an opportunity to do so just last week when the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked for unanimous consent to pass Bill C-58 several times, which roughly covers the same ground.

It is hard to listen to the member talk about us putting obstacles in the way of veterans' benefits when the member was not willing to pass it right away. Our veterans need real support. Veterans Affairs runs just one hospital close to my riding, which is known as Ste. Anne's Hospital. Sean Bruyea, a veterans advocate, says that it is essential to have such hospitals because they understand that the needs of veterans are unique.

Supporting our troops needs to be more than just a bumper sticker slogan. We need true support for our troops and support for the families of veterans. Will the member undertake to take Bill C-58 out of the omnibus budget bill and pass it right away, right here, right now?

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House, in two capacities, to speak on the budget implementation act.

I am very honoured to represent my home town in Parliament as the member of Parliament for Durham and the communities of Clarington, Scugog and Uxbridge. I will speak to some of the great elements of economic action plan 2015 that concerns my constituents in my riding and issues for which I have advocated.

I also have the tremendous honour to sit in the House of Commons as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As someone who has served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 12 years and had worked on these issues before joining this Parliament, it is a profound honour that I take seriously. There are some amazing new benefits and programs in the budget implementation act for veterans and their families, which I have made a pledge to pass before Parliament rises for the summer. It is why it is in the budget implementation act itself.

First, as the member of Parliament for Durham, I am very proud of this budget and what we would implement with it, because this is the culmination of four years of dedicated and strategic work by the Prime Minister and by our government.

Budgets do not balance themselves. Governments need to set priorities. They need to plan and they need to ensure they set an environment for job creation and economic growth, without taxing Canadians and small businesses too much, so we can stimulate an active economy and really see job creation and participation in our economy by young people, families and through seniors in their working and retirement years.

First, this budget is a balanced budget. We made a commitment to reach balance in 2015. We did that while raising transfer payments, in my case, to Ontario by over 80% for health and education. We did not take the route the Liberals did to balance a budget by slashing transfers to the provinces and making premiers cut hospitals and nurses. We have been increasing steadily that commitment. We have balanced the budget through growing the economy and by slowing the growth of government to core and strategic areas.

We told Canadians that once we achieved balance, we would offer tax relief for families with young children, seniors who were on fixed incomes and to continue to stimulate our economy. I am proud to say we have done that.

On the universal child care benefit, it is key to recognize that it is universal. Families with children will receive support, and then they can make their own decisions on what best works for their family. Whether one parent steps away from the workforce for a few years, whether one reduces and goes part time, whether they use live-in care, whether they use daycare, whether they use a parent or an aunt to look after the kids, parents make their choices and we empower that through our universal child care benefit. This has been very well received in my riding of Durham.

Now we are increasing it to $160 per month for children under six, which will be almost $2,000 a year for families to make their decisions with respect to child care. We are also enhancing it beyond the age of six, recognizing that there is after-school care. Schools get out 3 p.m. and parents need flexibility. Therefore, there will be almost $720 in a new extension of the universal child care benefit for children 6 to 17. We are increasing the child care expense deduction by $1,000 to allow people who use child care services to have more tax deductibility for that.

With our family tax cut, we are allowing income splitting on a limited basis for families in particular where mom or dad decides to step out of the workplace for a few years or reduce their hours. We are allowing that family unit to be taxed as more of a single unit, because parents are making decisions as a unit when they are raising families. All families do. I see that daily in my area of Courtice, Ontario. Therefore, while they are raising their children, this will allow them to smooth off that income and save up to $2,000 as part of our family tax cut.

For seniors, we are continuing to build on recognizing that seniors built the country, they are on fixed incomes in their pension retirement years and they need our support. Costs are going up.

We introduced pension income splitting a few years ago to allow seniors to be taxed as a unit while on a fixed income. In this budget, we have provided more flexibility so less withdrawals from RRIFs have to occur to allow for more savings. We have increased the tax-free savings account to $10,000 to allow financial planning and certainty for seniors and all families, and to encourage a saving culture.

I am also very proud that this government has listened to the MPs who hear from seniors in their ridings who want to stay in their homes and, in some cases, need modifications made to stay there. We have the home accessibility tax credit of up to $1,500, which would allow seniors to make modifications so they could stay in their own homes.

We are delivering for families and seniors with a balanced budget, as we promised.

Small businesses are the majority of employers across Canada. We have been cultivating the small business sector with over 30% lower taxes for it, allowing small businesses to invest with tax measures and encouraging them to hire in recent years with a new-hire tax credit. I am very proud our government is lowering the small business tax credit in this budget, from 11% to 9%. That allows small businesses to hire a few more people, to invest in their operations, to be competitive and grow. It is about jobs across the country, including in my riding of Durham.

This is how governments should work. It makes a plan, sets priorities, articulates that to Canadians, and then has the leadership that this Prime Minister has shown to deliver on that plan. This budget and the implementation of it recognizes that we are delivering exactly what we said when we reached a balance budget: support for families with young children, support for seniors, and stimulating economic growth and job creation in communities across the country.

In the remainder of my time, I will speak as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am very happy that the budget implementation act has some tremendous new benefits for veterans and their families, building on the work of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last year. The new veterans charter needed to be updated and amended to address our most seriously injured, those who have the most difficult time transitioning from their careers in the Canadian Armed Forces, and some of the gaps in the new veterans charter brought in by the Liberal government, implemented by our government, and voted on by all members in the House. With fixes contained in this budget implementation act, we will get to a veterans charter that will serve more than just most veterans. It will serve all veterans.

The retirement income security benefit addresses the issue of post-65 income for seriously injured veterans, when their earning loss benefit ends at 65 and they hit those retirement years. Under the old system, they would have seen a big drop in income at 65. We fixed that. We are guaranteeing them a predictable level of income post- 65, along with a permanent impairment allowance, another lifetime benefit, which over time I want to see streamlined into a single pension for the most seriously injured. With the retirement income security benefit, the RISB, contained in this implementation act, we will give peace of mind to veterans, who are moderately to severely injured in service to Canada, and their families.

Also in this implementation act is a critical injury benefit, a benefit that recognizes and compensates for the pain and suffering that servicemen and women will go through if they are critically injured in service to their country, an acute injury that leads to hospitalization, intensive care, surgical intervention. In the past, if they recovered, they would get a disability award based on the recovery without recognizing all the pain and suffering of that recovery time. The critical injury benefit would do that.

As well, there is the family caregiver relief benefit for the most seriously injured, which will provide over $7,000 tax free to a family to provide more flexibility. If we know a spouse or adult child is an added caregiver, Veterans Affairs will provide contracted care in the home. However, the home will be changed if someone is seriously injured. We are providing more flexibility, recognizing the critical role of family in the wellness of veterans.

These types of new benefits for the most seriously injured veterans and their families are items for which all parties have asked. They were contained in Bill C-58, but after six weeks of delay, intentional or not, six weeks of criticism of the very reforms that some members of the House asked for last year, I have included all of these provisions alongside our purpose statement of obligation in the budget implementation act.

It is a great act not just as the MP for Durham and the support for families and businesses, but I am profoundly proud of what it would do for veterans and their families.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act No. 1

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do members see what I mean by political games? The measures contained in Bill C-58 are in the budget implementation act, and the budget implementation act is here in debate and is going to committee right after the break week.

My opposition colleagues will have the opportunity to vote in favour of these tangible, credible, and real benefits for veterans, serving Canadian Armed Forces members, and their families, but they choose not to. Instead, they throw up a smokescreen and chaff, saying that it is not being done the way they want it to be done.

I say to put those political games aside and instead focus on the benefits that would be delivered to our veterans, serving members, and their families and vote them into law. They should join the government in serving our veterans and serving Canadian Armed Forces members, our men and women in uniform.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore made two attempts to send Bill C-58, which is about veterans, directly to committee after second reading in the House. Both times, the Conservatives refused to do it.

It is clear that this is a political game the Conservatives are playing because Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill, which we are discussing now, would not be disrupted if we were to agree to the motion moved by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore simply because the provisions in Bill C-59 could be withdrawn in committee if they became redundant.

Knowing that, can the parliamentary secretary explain why the Conservatives are against our proposal to send Bill C-58 to committee and pass it quickly? Why are they using these stalling tactics?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act, such an important piece of legislation for veterans.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I am pleased to say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs tabled in this House Bill C-58, support for veterans and their families. The provisions contained in the bill are so important for veterans that they are contained within the budget implementation act itself.

The budget implementation act is a major step forward in our work for our Armed Forces members, for veterans, and for their families. With the bill, our government would address unintended gaps in the new veterans charter.

In addition, the bill would satisfy recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Last June, the committee issued a report with recommendations to improve the new veterans charter. That report was based on input from over 50 veterans and veterans organizations that appeared at the committee. The report was unanimously accepted by all members of all parties on that committee.

Here is the problem for the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament. The measures in the budget implementation act address recommendations presented by the Veterans Ombudsman, by the veterans affairs committee, and by veterans and veterans organizations, yet for some incomprehensible reason, the opposition is fighting these initiatives, initiatives that would benefit our veterans and their families, instead of helping to pass them into law.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs is serving veterans extremely well. He has held a high number of consultations. He has reached out to veterans and veterans organizations, and over the last number of months, he has announced many significant initiatives for which veterans have been asking.

Within the first few weeks, the minister laid out his priorities for Veterans Affairs: having a focus on caring, compassion, and respect; having a veteran-centred service attitude; ensuring a seamless transition from the Armed Forces into Veterans Affairs; and providing service excellence. It is these priorities that have borne tangible fruit. There have been major announcements to improve government services and benefits for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, for veterans, and for their families.

I would like to briefly highlight some of those significant and important announcements, which are contained in the budget implementation act.

The retirement income security benefit would provide moderately and seriously injured veterans with continued assistance in the form of monthly income support payments, beginning at the age of 65. This was a direct response to the Veterans Ombudsman's recommendation. In fact, when the minister made this announcement, the Ombudsman said, “I encourage all Parliamentarians to pass this new pension benefit without delay”.

The minister also announced that the earnings loss benefit would now be calculated the same way for reserve force members as it is for regular force members. With this announcement, reservists would now receive earnings loss benefits equal to those of their regular force counterparts.

Alice Aiken, the director of the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, said:

This really speaks loudly and clearly to the reservist veterans that the minister in fact does have their 'six', and is willing to go to bat for them, and take care of them.

This is another announcement that was supported by the Veterans Ombudsman.

Building on this momentum, the minister then announced that the eligibility criteria for the permanent impairment allowance would be expanded to allow more veterans to benefit. More seriously injured veterans would now be eligible for more financial support.

Another significant and important announcement the minister made that is also contained in the budget implementation act was the new family caregiver relief benefit. Our government recognizes the vital contribution of caregivers, often the spouse or another family member, to the health and well-being of seriously injured veterans. This new benefit would provide an annual tax-free grant of over $7,000 per year to allow caregivers to take a well-deserved break while ensuring that their loved ones continued to receive the support they needed.

So far, I have been speaking of benefits and initiatives that were a direct response to the recommendations made at the veterans affairs committee. In other words, they are benefits and initiatives that the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament should have no hesitation voting in favour of.

However, the Minister of Veterans Affairs took the opportunity to offer a new benefit that went beyond what the committee and others had asked for, and of course, I am speaking of the critical injury benefit. The critical injury benefit would provide $70,000, tax free, to the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. This benefit is intended to address the immediate impact of severe and traumatic service-related injuries or diseases sustained by our Armed Forces members and veterans.

I think Mr. Phil Ralph, the program director of Wounded Warriors Canada, said it best when he said:

Any time you have a benefit that is going to add to the suite of benefits for veterans, it's a good thing. And the minister has done a good job at filling a whole bunch of gaps in the last couple of weeks.

These announcements are about respect for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, respect for veterans, and respect for their families. Our government recognizes its obligation to our Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans and is determined to enact and implement these measures as soon as possible. The purpose of these measures, which is contained in the budget implementation act is:

...to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a commitment to veterans that these initiatives, benefits recommended in an all-party report from the veterans affairs committee, would pass through the House before the end of this session. To fulfill our obligation, we have included these new benefits in the budget implementation act to ensure that they pass and can be implemented as soon as possible. I certainly look forward to bringing them into force so that serving members and veterans can actually benefit from them.

However, it is most unfortunate that the Liberals and the NDP are playing political games with our armed forces members, veterans, and their families regarding these new benefits. Earlier this week, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore attempted to move a motion to send Bill C-58 to the committee, which would actually have disrupted the passage of the budget implementation act and the bringing into force of these important benefits I am speaking of this morning.

Here is the dilemma. There are real and significant financial benefits contained in this budget implementation act that would improve the lives of serving Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, and their families. They are benefits that the opposition has asked for and has said it supports, yet when it comes time to vote on them and actually move them into law and make them a reality, the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament say that they will not vote for them.

As I said, it is shameful that the NDP and Liberals are playing these political games to the detriment of our veterans and their families. It is important to highlight to those watching this debate that the NDP and Liberal MPs will not just stand by while we move these benefits into law but will actively vote against them. Think about that for a moment. Opposition MPs are going to actively try to defeat these initiatives for veterans that are contained within the budget implementation act. They would rather that veterans and their families get nothing at all than receive these new benefits. It makes no sense at all, and it would disadvantage our veterans for the opposition's own partisan purposes.

Men and women in uniform and veterans have confidence that our Conservative government would not only propose these key benefits but would also do everything possible to ensure that they are actually brought into effect. They know that they can count on us to bring this through to a successful conclusion.

In closing, I would say to my Liberal and NDP colleagues that veterans, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and their families are watching closely. With this in mind, I would ask my opposition colleagues to reverse their current position and to instead vote in favour of the key new initiatives contained in the budget implementation act. They are initiatives that would benefit our serving members, veterans, and their families.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill C-59. Let me indicate that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful, hard-working member of Parliament for Beauport—Limoilou. I am pleased to have that opportunity.

Bill C-59 is a bill that I cannot accept. I will be opposing Bill C-59 for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it will implement the unfair tax scheme that the government introduced in its budget to transfer money to the wealthiest 15% of Canadians in the country. I refer, of course, to income splitting and increasing the TFSA.

A number of my colleagues have been talking about these issues in some detail. Since we only have ten minutes, I want to talk a little bit today about a couple of issues that I found particularly noteworthy and that would have an impact on people in my constituency. I will set it up as the good, the bad, and the missing. I will proceed to explain why.

Let me first of all say that the practice of omnibus bills that was introduced by the Liberals has really been put on steroids by the Conservatives. This bill is over 150 pages long. It deals with more than 270 clauses. It would amend dozens of acts, many of which are not within 100 miles of the budget. This kind of bill undermines the ability of MPs to do what it is that we were sent here to do, which is to scrutinize legislation.

Let me talk for a moment about something that I think is good in this bill. A couple of days ago it was called Bill C-58.

The government put Bill C-58, dealing with veterans, directly into this bill, and I will speak to that in a second. I supported Bill C-58, as it was known, because it would have improved the transition process for Canadian Forces members and veterans moving into civilian life. It would have established the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years. It would have established the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump sum compensation for severe, sudden, and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that were service-related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability. It would have established the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver's support.

I mention this in particular because my colleague and neighbouring MP, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has been fighting tirelessly on behalf of veterans and spoke the other day in support of these changes for veterans. The Minister of Veterans Affairs actually accused that member of trying to hold up these changes and delay the implementation of Bill C-58. That is why he stuck it into the middle of this omnibus bill.

What is interesting, though, as has been explained by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, is that if the Conservatives had left Bill C-58 as a stand-alone piece of legislation, it would have been in committee today. It would have been dealt with, it would have been reported back by the end of this month, and it would have been ready to be put into law by the end of May or the early part of June.

However, as a result of sticking it into this omnibus bill, it is going to be at least the end of June before this legislation will be completed. In other words, belying his words, the minister is himself intentionally delaying these provisions, and that is something I am completely opposed to. I must say I expected better from the minister than misrepresenting the position of my colleague, an articulate and hard-working advocate on behalf of veterans.

I also want to commend the government for agreeing with a position that the New Democratic Party has taken for many years, something proposed in its platform of 2011, which was to extend the compassionate care benefits for Canadians caring for loved ones. In our 2011 budget proposal, New Democrats talked about moving that out to six months. It is extremely important.

That was in the NDP platform in 2011, before the government introduced changes that denied eligibility to Canadians and placed constraints on which Canadians would be eligible for this benefit. While New Democrats agree with extending it, we face the same problem that exists with the EI benefit program in its entirety, and that is access.

Let me refer to a couple of points that were made by a representative from the Canadian Alliance of United Seniors on this particular issue. He stated:

Extending this program is a good idea, but there still are some major problems with this initiative. The first problem is the fact that the measure can be used only for caring for a terminally ill person dying within six months. This is not good enough as many persons, who are very ill, are not diagnosed as terminally ill in this short time frame, but could still use important care. As well, many persons who are the potential caregivers are not working or are self-employed, and thus will not have access to any funds through this program. So while a good improvement, this program needs more work, because as the population ages....

While there may be a slight increase in costs if we were to deal with the access issues, it is certainly a much more effective way of providing care than the options.

I also want to say that I have talked to constituents who have made representations to me on behalf of ALS Canada and would like to be included in this benefit through a change in the wording to include those who are in “significant need of caregiving because of terminal illness”. It is too bad that was not part of this change.

Among the things that were particularly noteworthy on the negative side is what the government has done with respect to public sector sick leave. The government is overriding its own recently redrafted Public Service Labour Relations Act and allowing Treasury Board to arbitrarily set sick leave and disability plans for employees in the federal public service. This is an affront to the ongoing collective bargaining process. It is completely wrong and it is utterly disrespectful to the whole process of collective bargaining.

I have already spoken about my concern with the government raiding the EI fund once again, just as the Liberals did, to the benefit of the wealthy few. I am also disappointed that the government did not come up with a plan for providing affordable daycare spaces, as New Democrats proposed, at $15 a day. The bill would implement the enhanced universal child care benefit. We have committed to keeping it, but we also think that affordable quality daycare spaces are necessary.

Some of the things my constituents would like to see include: develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with persistent structural youth and underemployment; immediately reverse the federal government plan to raise the retirement age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement to 67; fix the Veterans Affairs by reopening those closed offices; and start to listen to Canadians and show them some respect.

Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day. This is the 96th time this government has invoked closure or time allocation in this Parliament. No other government has done that. Canada has never had a government that has abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has. This is a sign of arrogance and incompetence because many of the bills that the government has introduced in the House of Commons have been rejected by the courts. They reject the legislation because the government does not really double-check its bills as much as it needs to.

Sadly, this is the 96th time in this Parliament, which is the worst record of all time. It is three times worse than any other previous government for bringing in closure and time allocation.

The government is going to say that it is trying to do this for our veterans. We will recall that after years of neglect of our nation's veterans and years of just refusing, cutting back on services and treating our nation's veterans with disdain, the Conservatives finally introduced a bill that would help to improve the situation. That is Bill C-58, which has sat on the order paper all week. For days, the NDP has been standing up and asking for unanimous consent to get Bill C-58 for veterans into committee so that veterans can start getting the relief that is called for. Instead, the government is saying that it is going to make them wait even longer with Bill C-59.

The question is very simple. Why are the Conservatives playing so many games with veterans? Why do they not heed the message from Alberta and, instead of showing such arrogance and incompetence, why do they not work with the opposition parties so that they can get good legislation that is not rejected by the courts?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

That's great. An extra meeting wouldn't be a problem at all, but you'd need at least three. You'd obviously want one to report back to the finance committee on what you're doing. You have to draft a letter and say yes or no, and there may be the odd amendment that we would propose, and we need to discuss those as well.

I would say two meetings for witnesses and a wrap-up meeting to send it back. Normally the process would be that the government introduces legislation, such as Bill C-58, and then it goes to second reading, has a vote, and comes to a committee, and we discuss it then. It normally doesn't go as separate legislation and then is thrown into a budget implementation bill like that. But that's okay. We've talked about that now, so this would be good: two meetings for witnesses and one to wrap up and send it back.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am honoured to speak in the House, but I am not particularly honoured to speak to Bill C-59. This bill is more than 150 pages long and will be devastating not only for the Canadian economy, but also for Canadian workers.

The Conservatives have once again introduced an omnibus bill designed to push through hundreds of changes that are not subject to study or oversight. This bill contains more than 270 clauses amending dozens of laws, most of which have nothing to do with the budget.

The Conservatives' income splitting plan will cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars and will benefit only the wealthy. The increase to the TFSA limit will only make things worse.

With more than 150 pages in this massive omnibus bill, yet again we see the Conservatives essentially abusing the parliamentary process. Today The Globe and Mail called it a “contemptuous disregard for Parliament” and “an ugly precedent”.

I remember what the current Prime Minister—and not for long prime minister—said while in opposition about omnibus legislation that he did not like. He said:

Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

The massive omnibus bill that the Prime Minister was criticizing was 20 pages long. However, Conservatives have brought in three omnibus bills that were over 450 pages long, and another one topped out at over 880 pages.

Therefore, I guess what Conservatives are saying to Parliament and to Canadians is that in such an abusive relationship, this is just a small abuse, so we should accept it and tolerate it. However, in one fell swoop, dozens of laws would be affected, from Parliament Hill security to terrorism to veterans to undermining basic human rights protections for unpaid interns to undermining the charter protection for collective bargaining for public servants in this country. All of that is rammed into this one bill, and Conservatives are going to ram it through Parliament just as surely as day follows night.

Let us first set the context of where this particular budget lands in the Canadian economy.

Members will notice that the Conservatives' talking points about the economic performance of the government are increasingly stale. That is because the only numbers that show any positive light on what is happening in the Canadian context are now three, four, and five years old, and according to the Department of Finance, for the last 15 months growth in Canada's economy has been less than 1%.

To put that in historical context, that is the worst record outside of a recession for any government in more than 40 years. I will repeat that: outside of recession, the last almost year and a half has been the worst growth record of any government in the last four and a half decades. Still Conservatives would have us believe that everything is fine, despite massive job losses in the energy sector, retail sector, and sectors like manufacturing. We have now lost more than 420,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs over the nine long years since the Conservatives took power. That is more than half a million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

This is devastating for the Canadian economy. As we have seen and as the Governor of the Bank of the Canada shows us consistently, when oil prices rise, the Canadian dollar rises, which tends to have a somewhat negative effect on manufacturing output, and when it drops, manufacturing typically picks back up in Canada. However, the Canadian dollar now hovers around 80¢. We have not seen that uptick in the manufacturing sector, because things are different now. Under the Conservatives' watch, the downturn in manufacturing has become more permanent.

There are in fact 250,000 fewer jobs in Canada right now than before the recession hit and more than 160,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the recession hit. We have not yet recovered from the depths of the recession. We have not yet seen the recovery that Canadians were expecting. Certainly, if one believed all the ads the government has bought with taxpayer money—almost $750 million worth—one would think everything was perfect. However, Canadians know different, because Canadians right now are carrying the highest debt loads in Canadian history. Each individual household is now carrying, on average, more debt than we ever have since our country was founded.

We also see, from a government that claims fiscal austerity and prudence, that the historical record has actually met the current record. The Conservatives have added more than $150 billion to the national debt. That is $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. We know it is more than $4,000 per person because by the time we pay that debt off—if we ever pay it off, and certainly not under our current government's plan—it will be much more than $4,000, because when one borrows money, it always ends up costing more. Every Canadian has had that experience with student loans or car loans or a mortgage. However, that is how much the Conservatives have added to the national debt.

People might ask what we got in return. Did we get a robust economy? Did we get a more diversified and sustainable economy, such as the one the leader in Alberta, Rachel Notley, talks about creating for that fine province? No. We have again seen an overreliance on a soaring commodity price that goes up and goes down. We have seen yet another opportunity squandered by the government.

If the Conservative economic plan was working, then the Conservative economic plan would be working, and it is not. Canadians know it, and no $750 million ad buy is going to convince them otherwise.

We have also seen in the budget document, this omnibus bill, that there are a lot of perks in it for the wealthy and the well connected. They do okay. In fact, they do great.

Bankers do not tend to use very colourful or aggressive language generally, but when asked about the performance of the Canadian economy just a few weeks ago, the Governor of the Bank of Canada called it “atrocious”. He is right.

In an atrocious economic environment, one would think job one from the government of the day would be to create jobs, to get people back to work, to diversify the economy, to invest in the economy in ways that would actually produce the jobs that we have been missing since the last global recession. Instead, we see the true priorities of the Conservatives when it comes to jobs, and that is their own jobs. They are hoping to buy back re-election just one more time.

“Give us one more chance”, say the Conservatives, “We're going to figure this thing out this time.” What they are looking to do is buy some votes and trick folks yet again with something like income splitting, which will cost in the order of $2.2 billion and do nothing for 85% of Canadian families whatsoever. It does something for 15% of families, and those families are particularly in the wealthier brackets. Nearly $2.5 billion will go to help the top 15%, and produce what in the economy? Nothing, except a little help for those who already have had quite a bit of help.

One might say that is enough of a bauble to give to wealthier Canadians, but the Conservatives say, “Wait; there is more. We are going to take a thing called the tax-free savings account, which right now has a limit of $5,500 per year, and nearly double it to $10,000.”

When we look at the actual impact of doing something like this, we see that tax-free savings accounts, despite the claim from the government, have not increased savings for Canadians. There is no evidence whatsoever that since TFSAs were first introduced in 2009, there has been any increase in savings for Canadians, which is the whole reason the government brought in the program in the first place. If the intention of the program was to help people save and people are not saving as a result of the program, we enter the very definition of insanity, which is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. However, that is exactly what we get when we deal with Conservatives.

Let us look instead at what the doubling of the TFSA actually does. There was a moment of truth in this whole debate that came from the Minister of Finance. Occasionally he drops by and says some things or talks to the odd reporter.

He said that this thing gets very expensive later on, which was the question, because it does. The cost to the treasury gets up into the tens of billions of dollars. He said, “Why don't we leave that to the Prime Minister's granddaughter to solve that problem?” Is that not nice? Is it not nice when a generation before us says, “Yes, we're creating a huge hole, but we're going to let the people a generation or two down the line fill it in”.

Those are not the conservatives I know. In the place I represent in northwestern British Columbia, the conservatives I know always look to make things better for their kids and grandkids, and that extends beyond the financial into the environmental. It is the idea that we try to leave the place better than we found it. Both on economics and the environment, Conservatives are at least consistent. They are into the scorched earth policies. They are into the ones that they will pay later. They are like the guy in Vegas with the ATM card who just does not know how to quit.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, which the Conservatives routinely quote in this place, an office we helped the Conservatives create, if we all remember, some nine years ago, this doubling of the TFSA would give the top 20% who receive this benefit 180% more than every other group of Canadians below them. Think about that for a moment. Almost double the advantages, almost double the money, almost double the benefits of everyone else combined would go to the people at the very top of the pile.

We also know that the PBO expects the benefit to high-wealth households to increase by 35%, while low- and middle-wealth households are, and this is a quote, “not projected to be materially affected by the proposed changes”. Therefore, middle- and working-class Canadians get bupkes; nothing. It is for the wealthiest group, which does have 10 or 20 grand just burning holes in their pockets at the end of every year.

I do not know what middle-class group of Canadians the Conservatives are talking to, but the ones I deal with are struggling just to make ends meet, with the high cost of child care, electricity, paying for their mortgages, and just keeping their homes good and happy. Most of the families I talk to do not have $10,000 or $20,000. Do members know who does? Do members know who is maxing out on this already and will max out in the future? It is the wealthy households. This is why the Conservatives are able to skew the stats. The children of wealthy families are maxing out their TFSAs and will again. It is a shelter for wealthy Canadians, which is how they are proposing to use it, making the problem even worse.

New Democrats maintain that keeping the TFSA where it is is fine, but doubling it will end up costing tens of billions of dollars, and again we have to ask to what effect.

There is so much in this bill. Let us talk for a moment about a proposal the NDP made as the government was clamouring to get to a balanced budget. We said we have this child poverty situation in this country that years and years ago the House of Commons solemnly committed to eradicate, under the leadership of Ed Broadbent, the former New Democratic leader and a mentor to many of us. All members stood in the House, Conservatives included, and said, “We are going to get to this problem, because it is a problem that affects all of us. It does not know right and left. It is right and wrong, and this is right”. The House of Commons said it was going to do something about it, so New Democrats came up with a solution.

The tax code is thousands of pages long, by the way. It costs billions of dollars for Canadians to file every year. The Conservatives only make that problem worse and more expensive for individuals and small businesses. They do not mind, because it is all about the next election. However, under that massive tax code, there is a little loophole for CEOs, for those who receive their pay in stock options. Again, I am thinking about the middle- and working-class Canadians I know. Not a lot of them get paid in stock options.

People who get paid in stock options pay almost half the tax that everyone else does. Is that not nice? Is it not nice to get paid in stock options and only pay half the tax? For people making north of $250,000, $350,000 a year, times are tough.

There is a $750 million per year loophole in the tax code now that we said should be closed. It is easy, it is understandable, and we know what to do with it: take every single dollar from that loophole and help eradicate child poverty in Canada. Who is going to vote against that? Who is going to stand in this place and say no, no, no, the folks in the corner offices, the CEOs, the guys driving the Maseratis and the Ferraris, they need that money. It is hard to get to St. Barts and St. Kitts these days. Prices are high for that second, third, and fourth vacation home.

Instead, New Democrats said to use it to eradicate child poverty, which would help right across the board, not only the children and families involved who are living below the poverty line but our education system and our health care system, and it would help Canada be a more productive and prosperous nation.

We have also seen in this massive bill the ramming in of an entire veterans bill, which was before the House, Bill C-58, and that the government has been stalling on for years, to help out our veterans. After the Conservatives' shameful treatment, which continues to this day, denying veterans of this country the benefits they are so deserving of, they decided to pick it up holus bolus and drop it into an omnibus bill.

Just before this debate started, we sought the strength of the House of Commons to take that veterans bill and move it right to committee today. What did the Conservatives say? No. They said no. They said they did not want to do that. They would rather have it go through this process that will take weeks and perhaps months and go to the Senate and all the rest of that stuff. That is how much they care about veterans. It is a political football for them to toss around again and again.

The changing of Hill security, the changing of a constitutional decree about how security should be done on the Hill, is also in this.

New Democrats have been fighting, through the good work of a number of our MPs from all across the country, to protect unpaid interns from unreasonable work and sexual harassment at work. We had a bill we have been fighting for through Parliament. The Conservatives denied it. They put something in here, but they forgot to put the part in to protect unpaid interns from sexual harassment. They forgot, they said. It did not come up, they said. We had legislation going through the House. These are disproportionately young Canadians and they are vulnerable in the workplace because obviously, if they are seeking an internship, particularly an unpaid one, they are trying to get a resume together, trying to get a foot in the very difficult marketplace and job market. Yet Conservatives found no room in their hearts to actually fix this.

I have to say a couple of things that are positive, because I am an optimistic guy. There are four things out of 157 pages. That is not bad. Unsurprisingly, they were proposals we put forward to the House of Commons.

Before I went into politics, I was a small-business owner. I know intuitively, and the facts back it up, that small businesses are the engine of the Canadian economy. They create eight out of 10 new jobs in Canada in the private sector. They account for almost 45% of our GDP, the strength of this economy. While Conservatives and Liberals alike have been handing out billions upon tens of billions of corporate tax cuts to the largest corporations, we said how about a little break for small businesses. The NDP proposed a 2% drop in the small business tax rate.

We also said that manufacturing has been hammered. More than half a million jobs have been lost in just 15 years, and more than 400,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the government took over. We said let us help out manufacturing.

We also said that we want to see innovation, because Canada's private sector consistently has one of the lowest levels of innovation in research and development of any of the developed nations. We have to change that, so we put a motion to the government and debated all day in the House of Commons. What did the government say? It said that is was bad economics and a bad idea, and the Conservatives voted against the NDP motion.

Lo and behold, surprise of surprises, those very same ideas ended up in the omnibus budget bill. I guess they were such bad economics that the Conservatives found themselves agreeing with the NDP's ideas. Good for them. Imitation is the best form of flattery, but imitation is obviously not as good as the original. The Conservatives decided to lower the small business tax rate twice as slow as what we had proposed. There is urgency in trying to buy some votes from wealthier Canadians, but they will take their time when it comes to helping small businesses.

Conservatives also changed some rules about RRIFs, which the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River had proposed, and they extended the compassionate care benefits in EI to help people who are caring for a loved one at end of life. We think that is good. We think we need to change the rules around EI so that more people, particularly women, who are the ones who do 75% of this palliative care, actually qualify for EI.

In summation, to say this is yet another failed opportunity is far too gracious. This is a government so focused on its own prospects it is unable to see the concern we have, shared by the governor of the bank, by private sector economists, and by developed nations, writ large, that the Canadian economy is sputtering. It is not creating the jobs. It has not recovered those jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, because it:

a) fails to support working- and middle-class families through the introduction of affordable childcare and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage;

b) imposes wasteful and unfair income-splitting measures which primarily benefit the wealthy and offer nothing to 85% of Canadian families;

c) fails to protect interns against workplace sexual harassment or unreasonable hours of work;

d) implements expanded Tax-Free Savings Account measures which benefit the wealthiest households while leaving major fiscal problems to our grandchildren;

e) rolls a separate, stand-alone, and supportable piece of legislation concerning Canada's veterans into an omnibus bill that contains vastly unrelated, unsupportable measures; and

f) attacks the right to free and fair collective bargaining for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.”

Business of Supply

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion which, coincidently, is currently on the order paper, standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs.

Veterans

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in committee, the Minister of Veterans Affairs was extremely economical with the truth, blaming the opposition for the delay of passage of Bill C-58 when they themselves introduced a bill and never brought it back.

The Conservatives are shoving it in Bill C-59, an omnibus bill, knowing full well that we in the NDP will never vote confidence in the Conservatives.

Will the government now agree with our motion after question period to move Bill C-58 immediately to committee for immediate review?

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the provisions in Bill C-58 will be going to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for review, even though most of the provisions in that bill were recommended by that very committee last June.

He should stop the rhetoric in the House, recognize that some of these recommendations were adopted by all sides, and get behind Bill C-58, the budget implementation act, making tangible progress for veterans and their families.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is playing a dangerous political game. After making cuts to care and services for veterans and spending over $700,000 to defend itself against a class action lawsuit filed by veterans, the government is now trying to pass Bill C-58 in the middle of dozens of other measures, without debate, without examination in committee and without any consideration for veterans.

Why is the government playing partisan politics at the expense of veterans?

Taxation

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, unfortunately, the Minister of Veterans Affairs misled Canadians in the House, so I would like to ask unanimous consent for the following motion, which coincidentally, is currently on the order paper standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

I move that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to another act now be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Veterans

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, as that member knows, we will be supporting the motion later today. In fact, the obligation statement we have made through Bill C-58, now in the budget implementation act, goes much further than that motion. It applies to all veterans and talks about the obligation we have, It goes further and says that it must be liberally construed.

More important are the benefits in that bill that would help veterans at 65 with their retirement income security benefit, their critical injury benefit and the family caregiver relief benefit. These are all new benefits and programs. That is enough time posturing; the NDP needs to get behind it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I have tremendous respect for the people that make up the Equitas Society and for Jim Scott, Major Mark Campbell, and Aaron Bedard. I've met and spoken with several of them. As I've said, I never like to see someone who is frustrated to the point of going to court. I feel that a lot of the reforms in Bill C-58 have been the result of me not just listening here, but listening to their concerns and their demands.

I sincerely hope they see Bill C-58 as progress and they see our purpose statement, and our fulfillment of the obligation that they've talked about, as a positive step.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Absolutely. Thank you, and I will try and keep it short because I see that the chair is holding me to it.

We had a stakeholder summit that, I think, was probably the largest of its kind. It involved traditional membership-driven organizations as well as online peer support organizations. We had working groups. We actually developed ideas that came from the stakeholders that were very well received. We talked about Bill C-58. It was well received.

I want to do this twice a year so that we can hear from them. The online peer support groups like Send Up The Count and brigade wellness groups are the new eyes and ears. Also, we're trying to help find a way they can work with other—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Very quickly, then, on Bill C-58 with the $7,000 grant for caregivers, would you be willing to revise that to match it to the attendant allowance with the five grades to at least give someone who has to leave their place of work some sort of liveable income and respite care while they have it, because $7,000, in my estimation, Mr. Minister, as nice as it is, is simply not enough for those who have to quit their jobs to care for people. A higher allowance to the attendant allowance would be better appreciated, I believe.

Would you accept that amendment?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

There are a few questions there.

In terms of Bill C-58 and the budget implementation act, the budget implementation act will ensure that I meet my commitment to veterans and their families about passing these benefits, these reforms, before Parliament rises. I've made that commitment. I think it's important. Since most of Bill C-58 came from this committee, I would love our House leaders to work together to have quick passage of Bill C-58 standalone.

My early feedback, and what I heard in terms of comments on some of these new benefits, is that this was not going to be achieved. Even yesterday, your opposition day was really the first substantive response—if I could call it a response—to Bill C-58 by your party, that was six weeks. As I said, the debate was a good one, but I can't allow delay, whether intentional or not, to fall into place to delay these benefits.

As I've said, fair comment would be that there's more to do, but that's not a reason to delay the benefits that are in Bill C-58. I won't let that happen.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, thank you. I work closely with Equitas on the development of that motion, and they are still interested in knowing where the class action lawsuit is going to go.

In the remaining time, I have two questions. Will you commit, Minister, to separate Bill C-58 from the budget implementation act, so that this committee and the opposition can deal with this and move it forward in a timely manner, as opposed to bundling it with an omnibus budget bill? If that is the case, I think you'll find a speedy passage, and perhaps there is a possibility of getting it through, as opposed to putting it in with the BIA.

You mentioned earlier in your remarks those veterans who have passed away and that those funds have not been reinvested back into veterans programs. Could you comment on why that isn't the case? Why aren't they reinvested in existing programs?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I'll go to your motion from yesterday. In my speech that followed your speech, I thanked you for bringing the motion. I think anytime we have a substantive debate on care for veterans and their families in the House of Commons, that's a good thing. As I noted in my debate, my first day as minister in the House, in response to my good friend Peter Stoffer, I quoted Robert Borden's words in relation to the just appreciation that Canada owes the men and women who serve us. This is an almost 100-year-old statement of the tremendous obligation, as I describe it, that we owe to our veterans. It is not an obligation frozen in time, so we need to constantly look at the needs now and in the future.

The motion you brought forward yesterday, I think, stimulated some good discussion in the House. As I said, it falls short, actually, of proposed section 2.1 of Bill C-58, our purpose clause, which builds in the specific language from Robert Borden that specifically speaks to all veterans, not just the injured, and then says that the act itself must be liberally construed. In fact, that was a recommendation this committee made last year, so I was a little surprised that your motion yesterday did not have that same construction in terms of the fact that the purpose clause, the obligation, must be liberally construed to promote a “benefit of the doubt” approach in terms of support for veterans and their families.

I think that what we have in Bill C-58 is superior, on a few levels, but I am glad we had almost a day of discussion in the House of Commons. We had some great personal stories from members of Parliament who have served, have bases in their ridings, have travelled to Vimy Ridge, and have spent time with veterans. That was a very positive development. It is also a key reason why our government will be, I believe tonight, voting in favour of your motion, Mr. Donnelly.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Absolutely. I think the new veterans charter was created to try to focus on wellness. Each year we have about 1,200 men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are released from service for medical reasons. In some cases it's from a service injury. In a very small number of cases, thankfully, it's a very serious injury. It could be in a theatre of operations or in training.

In the old system, it was very important to be in a special duty area and injured. That's not the case now. At the end of the day, the goal has to be getting those people to a good place after their military careers. The more ability they have to recover, to rehabilitate, and to find new purpose and meaning in a second career, the more we have to facilitate that. The goal of the new veterans charter was to focus that financial support and rehabilitation quickly to help with transition. Because if transition goes well, they leverage their military careers into great careers after service.

There are some who will have a very difficult time transitioning, whether from physical or mental injury from service. Those people need additional supports, clearly. That's why in 2011, our government introduced the permanent impairment allowance supplement. It's why Bill C-58 has the retirement income security benefit. It's why we're looking at the critical injury benefit.

This committee, in its report last June, said that there should be a focus on moderately to seriously injured veterans because they have the hardest time transitioning. I have essentially followed the advice of this committee, of the ombudsman, and others to try and target that. The less serious the injury, the greater the ability of the vocational rehabilitation training, up to $75,000, to get that person into a new career.

As I say to a lot of veterans, there are three pillars of recovery. There's the health of the veteran, the wellness of their family, and the second career. I put family in the middle because it's critical. If the second career doesn't go well, it affects the other two. The living charter concept we built into Bill C-58 with the purpose clause in proposed section 2.1 is very similar to recommendation 2 of your report in terms of our ongoing obligation to our veterans and their families.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Valeriote. There was a lot there that I'll address in sequence.

Certainly I saw Madam Migneault here today and I look forward to speaking more with her. I've already learned quite a bit from her perspective as a caregiver and the compassion she shows, and I appreciate those in the home helping people with operational stress injuries.

Second, on your statement—is this enough?—and your pessimism about this bill not passing, I sensed that there would be delays in Bill C-58 so that's why it's in the budget implementation bill. It will pass. I've made that commitment.

Is it enough? As I said to Mr. Stoffer, fair criticism is to say, there is more to do. In fact, when your party created the new veterans charter—I know you weren't in the Parliament when it was created—it was intended to be a living charter. I've said repeatedly since I became minister that that's what it will be. What I hope is that we pass Bill C-58, which addresses some of the critical items this committee recommended. That's why I was hoping for swift passage. Then this committee could do what it did last year, which was to look back and see whether the new benefits, the new reforms, the new programs in Bill C-58, and in the last two years on mental health have been having an impact, and then plan a new set of priorities. That's how this committee should run. As minister, I would count on that input to make sure that we're meeting the needs, not just today but in the future.

On PTSD, let me say this. In my work before I became a parliamentarian supporting military families, this was my area of focus. It is a huge priority for the government. By the end of this year, we'll have 26 operational stress injury clinics open across the country. The first one didn't open in Canada until 2002. This is trying to address a growing need.

When it comes to the critical injury benefit, what I've said to veterans is, this benefit is open to any type of physical or mental injury. There is the possibility of somebody suffering post-traumatic stress from a single occurrence. The issue with operational stress injuries is that no injury is the same and no treatment regime is usually the same. They're very individualized injuries, so this is inclusive.

But what veterans and parliamentarians should not do is start comparing physical injuries to mental injuries. If the critical injury benefit ends up being primarily for serious physical injuries, that's okay. We're trying to address the seriously injured. It's a tailored benefit that's not meant to apply to 700,000 veterans in Canada. At the same time, permanent impairment allowance is primarily paid to people with mental injuries from service. Is that inherently unfair to somebody with a physical injury? No, it is not. The new veterans charter tries to tailor financial support, medical support, and rehabilitation to the needs of the veteran, whether their injury is physical or mental. So it's not fair to compare who might qualify; it's about getting them the support they need.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, General, for appearing before us.

Minister, thank you for the wonderful program in the Netherlands that you included me in. It was remarkable. I was speaking to the general about it. Frankly, it was an overwhelming emotional experience.

While both of you certainly earned the respect of everyone around this table, it does not at all mean that we agree with your approach to the solutions that our veterans need to the issues that ail them daily.

You speak of Bill C-58. Mr. Stoffer has already addressed his concern about it not passing. My wager is that it's not going to get through this committee and then back to Parliament and passed, not because we're delaying it, but because I don't think it's going to happen in time before this Parliament rises, which is regrettable.

That said, proposed section 44.1 of that legislation—we've talked about this—defines those who are entitled to this benefit of the single lump sum payment as a result of a single injury at a moment. We've had the conversation about the fact that PTSD sufferers are essentially excluded from this because PTSD isn't that single event. PTSD often arises and manifests itself later.

I've been at briefings and, quite rightfully, I've been told that there are other benefits available to those who suffer from PTSD, but when you do not define PTSD as a traumatic injury, Minister, which it is, and do not provide for some form of lump sum compensation for those people later, then you marginalize those people—and there are thousands of them. In fact, I'll bet you that the ministry doesn't know how many people are suffering from PTSD out there right now. We've had people like Jenny Migneault having to chase your predecessor for help. I put it to you, sir, that while there may be other programs available to them, they are insufficient.

I have a question for you. You have indicated that while this legislation does not completely close the gap, it goes a long way in filling the gap. Even the veterans ombudsman appeared before this committee in April and said that while it is addressing some of the issues, it is not yet enough and it doesn't clearly meet all the needs of our veterans. Is it your proposition that this is all enough? If it is not all enough, and there is more to do, why aren't you doing it? We've given you, in many reports, the things that need to be done.

The only thing I can think of as to why you're not doing it is that your Prime Minister has said, “I'm sorry, Minister, this is all the money you're getting. I'm in austerity and I have to balance a budget in an election year, so we're not going to give you the money that's needed to complete all their needs.”

What is it? Have you done everything that you can do, particularly for those suffering from PTSD, and if not, why not?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

That's correct. The new benefits contained in Bill C-58—the critical injury benefit, the retirement income security benefit, and the family caregiver relief benefit—are all new benefits that require parliamentary approval. As of April 1, we've already expanded inclusion in the permanent impairment allowance, and we've fixed the earnings loss issue for class A and class B reservists. We were able to do those immediate fixes with regulatory changes, but these three benefits are new. They require parliamentary approval. That's why I made the pledge to veterans and their families that they would pass in this session.

They were all contained in this committee's report last June, which is why, when it seemed that there was not a willingness to move forward quickly on Bill C-58, we've included it in budget implementation so that I can keep my commitment to veterans and their families.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being with us today.

I'd also like to thank you for directing your comments to the legislation that is in front of the House. I want to thank you for your commitment to have it passed before we rise at the end of this session. I think that's extremely important. Otherwise, they are just promises never delivered upon. I think that's critical.

I would say to Mr. Stoffer that it's in the budget implementation act. In the past what's happened is the portions that pertain to a particular committee, for example the veterans portions in the budget implementation act that would pertain to this committee, will probably be sent to this committee. We have to wait to see what the finance committee decides, but I wouldn't be surprised if this committee will review the clauses in the budget implementation act that refer to the comments the minister made today about the new initiatives and passing them into law.

Minister, I'd like to ask you a question about Bill C-58, about the legislation in front of the House, and that has to do with the critical injury benefit. I think it's a great initiative, but I think it could be misunderstood for example when compared to the disability award.

There was a great example given at the time of the announcement of a soldier who would collect the critical injury benefit, but I'm wondering if you could elaborate for the committee on the difference between the critical injury benefit and the disability award.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Certainly I'm proud of the Dutch Canadian community who in Canada have kept the memory of the liberation alive, and certainly going to the Netherlands, as you have in the past, you see how the Dutch people keep it alive, so I want to thank you for making sure there was a special event in Halifax.

I do think on Bill C-58, as I said, this is a living charter. I think C-58 and our reforms in 2011 show it's up to us to make sure we constantly meet the needs of veterans and their families today and in the future. It's fair comment to ask what our next priorities are, but C-58 needs passage in this Parliament. I've made that commitment, and that's why it's included in the budget implementation bill to make sure I have that backup plan.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Then I'll end on a positive note. I wanted to tell the committee that last Monday, in Halifax, we had our 70th anniversary commemoration, and the minister was kind enough to send me his speech because he couldn't be there. He was in the Netherlands. I think it's the first time I can recall that an opposition critic read the minister's speech to a crowd of 400 to 500 people. I wanted to thank the minister for that opportunity, but don't forget we're not letting you off on C-58 by the way.

Thank you so much.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Minister, with great respect for the position you hold, that is simply not true. We in the opposition—I can't speak for the Liberals—have never indicated a delay of Bill C-58, and to indicate we have is simply not true.

I have another question for the deputy minister.

Deputy Minister, is Mr. John Larlee of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board still employed by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Certainly, you do have many years here in Ottawa, sitting both on SCONDVA and on this committee. In fact, you are the only member of this committee who voted for the new veterans charter.

I have made a commitment to veterans to get these reforms passed before this Parliament rises. That is my commitment. Most of Bill C-58 was recommended by this committee, so the substance of the bill actually came from this committee. The 54 witnesses I referred to all supported these reforms and want to move on them. Two years ago, the ombudsman recommended what has become the retirement income security benefit.

My concern, with all due respect, is that the committees have talked about this since your early years on the new veterans charter and the veterans affairs committee. We need action. It's a fair comment to say there is more to do. I have said that this is a living charter and there will be more to do, but these reforms are important. These are benefits and programs for veterans and their families that I've told them, including Mr. Jenkins, will pass in this Parliament.

My initial discussions, including emails you sent out that were sent to me by veterans, indicate that you would prefer more committee time, more study, and ultimately delay of these benefits before July. I won't allow that to happen. You can fairly comment that there is more to do, Mr. Stoffer, but since most of Bill C-58 comes from your recommendations, I hope to goodness we can get these passed. Bill C-58 is still on the order paper, but now with your opposition day motion yesterday, challenging the priorities of Bill C-58, I guess—that's the only thing I could see that that day really tried to do—it is clear you wanted to delay, and I won't allow delay to happen when I have made a commitment to veterans.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it's good to see you are back in the chair.

I thank the minister and the deputy minister very much for appearing before us today. I thank both of you gentlemen for the fine work and representation you did on Canada's behalf recently in the Netherlands for the 70th anniversary. I thank you both very much for that.

Minister, I just received an email from Gord Jenkins regarding Bill C-58 and what you told him. Bill C-58 was introduced by the government, yet we haven't seen second reading of the bill yet. It hasn't even come to this committee yet. However, in the email to him, you are implying that the opposition parties are delaying these reforms.

Mr. Minister, with great respect, you introduced the bill. The government introduced the bill. It hasn't been brought before this committee. In fact, this committee has had two cancellations. We have been asking for Bill C-58 to come to the committee. We have some amendments, and we have indicated to the parliamentary secretary that we could pass the bill fairly quickly, but we can't do that unless we actually have the bill come before the committee. We understand now that you have indicated that this bill will now be part of the budget bill, which means that this bill does not have to come to the committee. It will all be wrapped up in the budget omnibus bill, which basically means that no veteran, no veterans' organization, and not even the opposition will have an opportunity to debate this bill in committee.

Mr. Chairman, after 18 years in the House of Commons, I find it rather unusual that when a government, either Liberal or Conservative, introduces a bill and it doesn't come before the appropriate committee for us to do what we are supposed to do: review it, look at it, and pass it. If you wanted clear passage of this bill, we have already indicated that we like this bill. There are some changes that have to happen. There is no question that we have some amendments for it. I have indicated that before but, sir, we haven't seen the bill.

Can you explain to me how the opposition is holding up this legislation when we don't even have the bill before the committee?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. It is good to be back here. I remember fondly, in my first year in Parliament, being a part of this standing committee. It's good to see you and the clerk. Some of the members of the opposition were at the committee at that time, as were some of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus. It is an honour for me to be back appearing before you as minister, particularly after a profound period of progress and reform in the last number of months.

I'm also joined, as you said, by my deputy, retired General Walter Natynczyk. You stole my joke, Mr. Chair, about the retired general being deputy to an average retired captain. I'm very fortunate to have Walt, and I have long known about his passion for military families and for veterans.

Also, from my department I have some senior leaders here who will have additional information should the committee require it. I have Bernard Butler, director general of policy; Michel Doiron, the ADM for service delivery; and, Maureen Sinnott, director general of finance.

I want to start my remarks by saying that my time on this committee was formative in my development as a parliamentarian and with regard to the knowledge base I'm working from as Minister of Veterans Affairs. Your reports, both those from the time I served on the committee and the report on the new veterans charter, have been formative in my consideration of legislation and reform. I want to thank all 54 of the witnesses who appeared before this committee as part of your intensive look at the new veterans charter. Some are here in the audience today.

Then there's my background before Parliament. As many people know, I did serve 12 years in the Canadian Armed Forces in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I'm proud of that time. When I left the uniform, I worked in the non-profit and “support our troops and veterans” area with my Legion, Branch 178, and with the True Patriot Love foundation, which I, along with some other passionate Canadians, helped create. I've also worked alongside amazing Canadians from coast to coast, some who have served and some who have not served, in groups organizing walks, with Wounded Warriors, Treble Victor—I'm wearing their pin today—and Canada Company.

This is the background I bring and this is why I was so honoured when the Prime Minister asked me to serve in this role.

My team has worked with veterans groups, the veterans ombudsman and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The work done by the deputy minister, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk, is really something to behold.

I want to thank all parliamentarians and all veterans groups for giving me your priorities and working with me going forward.

Your study on the new veterans charter was an important one, and the most important finding, beyond your 14 recommendations, was that the approach to wellness, transition, and support for the veterans and their families is sound. In fact, I think on page nine of your report you urged keeping the new veterans charter and its approach to transition, but you clearly said that there needed to be a better charter with fixes.

I'm sorry, it was on page two. It works for most veterans, as you said, but “'most' is not enough”, to quote your report.

I agree that most is not enough. The new veterans charter was brought in by the last Liberal government, implemented starting in 2006 by the Harper government, reformed in 2011 by the Harper government with the addition of the Permanent Impairment Allowance supplement, leading up to Bill C-58 now before Parliament, which was introduced at the end of March and is the most comprehensive update to address some of the issues in areas in which the new veterans charter was not meeting all needs. It was meeting most, as your committee report showed, but we need to fix gaps to make sure that it serves veterans and their families and strives for excellence in that regard.

I am very happy that Bill C-58, the Support for Veterans and Their Families Act, has been introduced in the House of Commons. It makes essential changes to the New Veterans Charter.

Bill C-58 builds upon the work of this committee in your study on the Veterans Charter and addresses some of the gaps that were highlighted over the last few years by the ombudsman, by several veterans stakeholders, and last June by this committee.

I'll go through those briefly, now; they are before Parliament awaiting approval.

The retirement income security benefit is perhaps the most urgent fix needed for the new veterans charter, highlighted clearly by the ombudsman, highlighted by the Royal Canadian Legion, naval veterans, and a range of other stakeholders. It was a problem on the horizon, Mr. Chair.

Very few to no new veterans charter veterans are 65 now. But it was clear that as some of them hit the age of 65 and lost their earnings loss benefit, they would have a steep decline in their income in their retirement years post-65. That was an unintended gap in the new veterans charter, when the income supplement of earnings loss ended. We've remedied that gap, particularly for those who served in the military, were injured, and did not have pensionable time to provide them with pensionable income at that stage of life.

The retirement income security benefit will kick in at 65 to ensure that in retirement there's a predictable amount of financial security for the rest of that veteran's life, based on 75% of their pre-65 Veterans Affairs revenue. Important to note, the survivability is sound in this. The surviving spouse gets some financial security on the death of the service member, something that did not exist with the exceptional incapacitation allowance under the old system, Mr. Chair.

So we're learning. We are very proud that we've addressed that with a retirement income security benefit.

The second benefit in Bill C-58 is the critical injury benefit. That's a benefit that will pay $70,000 to a veteran who has been injured in a sudden, traumatic event. This is another area in which the new veterans charter did not foresee all circumstances of men and women injured from service. The disability award in the new veterans charter—the so-called lump sum—is calculated when the recovery of that veteran takes place and their permanent disability over a lifetime is assessed.

What that disability award did not take into consideration was the pain and suffering of recovery: the multiple surgeries, time in intensive care, and time in recovery themselves after these surgical interventions. There was no recognition of that, and no pain and suffering compensation for it. It's a gap that the critical injury benefit will address.

Also in Bill C-58 we provide the family caregiver relief benefit for the most seriously injured. When a caregiver in the home—a spouse, or even an adult child—is really becoming the informal caregiver to that veteran. Veterans Affairs will often pay for a professional, contract caregiver in a home and for support. But we all know that those are nine-to-five accommodations. The new normal for families living with a serious injury changes their life. This will give relief by providing that family member almost $8,000 tax-free per year to use in any way that helps them overcome some of the challenges of caregiver fatigue.

We know that all families bear the stresses of an injury, mental or physical, in the household. We've been trying to address that through additional counselling for family members for operational stress injury support for the families and use of the Family Resource Centres for veterans and their families upon release.

This latest family caregiver relief benefit is yet another benefit intended to help the families of the most seriously injured. This is an area I will continue to explore as minister, because I know the critical role that family plays in the wellness of a veteran.

We've also expanded and made eligibility criteria easier for the permanent impairment allowance, adding approximately 305 new veterans to that lifetime permanent impairment allowance payment. That's another element that was recommended in your standing committee report last June.

We've also implemented what I called respect for the reserves, to remind Canadians that without the men and women who serve in our reserve units across the country, we would not have the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces that we have today. We've ensured that class A and class B reservists earn the same earnings loss benefit entitlement as regular force, or class C.

It's about respect. Just a few days ago, it was a year from our National Day of Honour celebrating the 12-year mission in Afghanistan and honouring the sacrifice. Twenty-five percent of those people were reservists. We have also added at least an additional hundred case managers and a hundred benefit adjudicators to deal with some of the backlogs.

These changes represent fundamental improvements to many systems, services, supports and programs that veterans need in order to successfully make the transition to civilian life.

I could go on, Mr. Chair, but I see my time is up.

Colleagues, I urge support of Bill C-58. I want to thank the standing committee, the ombudsman, and the veterans. I appreciated that you came together with your recommendations. Since we've moved on many, I hope we can pass Bill C-58, and I look forward to your questions.

Opposition Motion—Care for Veterans

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question, but I am not in a position to answer it. This is something that is before the courts, and I would not be qualified to speak on that anyway even if I wanted to.

The fact is, through Bill C-58, through the statement of purpose, we are acknowledging the sacred obligation, which we have always tried to fulfill, as has every government before us, Liberal and Conservative alike, tried to fulfill. It is wrapped up in some legal nuances and details that defy logic sometimes to a non-legal mind.

I will say that veterans are never shy to speak up. I do not know any veteran who is shy to speak up, but I have vocally sympathized with some of their frustrations. That is why we have been working so darn hard to fix that. We have not fixed everything, we will probably never fix everything, and it is always going to be a work in progress, but we have made huge strides. For most of the folks who are in that situation now, please come back and let us have another talk, because there is a new team in town.

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, with a few more months remaining in this Parliament, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre is a privy councillor and has been in the House of Commons since 2006, after a 30-year career in the Canadian Armed Forces. Because he is not running in the next election, this may be one of his last major interventions in the House on veterans. I can assure all of my colleagues here that there has not been a stronger champion for the military and veterans in the last generation than the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre. It is also his birthday. I will not use this question and comment to ask him his age, because that might be why he is retiring. I am the younger navigator version of the RCAF caucus.

My question is about the 1,200 men and women who were medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces. In his experience, the veterans charter focuses on transition. The best post-military career for these people is a new career if their military career was cut short because of injury. With up to $76,000 potentially being spent transitioning, has he not seen the benefit of a veterans charter working for those injured veterans, particularly with the improvements we have made through Bill C-58?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent time to have this debate on this very topical member's motion.

In response to my hon. colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, we have already said we are supporting the motion, so let us put that aside.

I would like to take a little bit of time to be as factual as I can and as non-partisan as I can and lay out on the table what is actually happening in the Veterans Affairs world.

I am a veteran. I have had the pleasure of serving in the Canadian Armed Forces alongside some of Canada's finest. The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs is also a veteran. That is one of the many reasons his understanding and depth of knowledge in these matters is second to none. He understands the challenges of the military lifestyle and he knows first-hand how positive these changes at Veterans Affairs Canada will be for our men and women in uniform. I am glad to see more veterans being elected to this House, and hopefully more will be elected in October.

Veterans will get the services they need, and they will get them when they need them. The minister has clearly communicated with Canadians that how we serve and care for our veterans is a priority for this government and that veterans and their families will continue to get the support they need and deserve.

Our government has always supported veterans, and in doing so, we often see veterans join our team. One of these fine veterans is a man named Tim Laidler, who is now a candidate for us in British Columbia. We look forward to having him on the team.

Historically, the support from the government for veterans is based upon the Pension Act, which was first introduced in 1919 as assistance for soldiers returning from a war that is now a century old. As time evolved, different conflicts arose and our armed forces faced new challenges.

We cannot forecast all these things. In 1938, did we understand that we would have hundreds of thousand of World War II veterans? In 1949, did we understand that we would have thousands of Korean War veterans? In 2000, did we understand that we would have thousands of Afghan veterans? Tomorrow, or ten years down the road, will we be saying the same thing about some other conflict?

Veterans needs change, and we have to adapt with that. It is our responsibility to adapt and apply new laws and legislation that better address the needs of today's veterans while not forgetting the needs of our traditional veterans. There are almost 60,000 Second World War veterans still with us.

The Liberals' new veterans charter was designed from 1999 to 2005, culminating with its introduction and passage in Parliament in a single day. It has been said that the new veterans charter represented a new social contract with Canadian veterans.

We are all aware that the new veterans charter required some practical tuning. The government has taken on those challenges. Arguably, it could have been done faster. As with all governments, that is an easy charge to make, and frankly, I wish we could have done things faster.

The fundamental concept behind the new veterans charter is based on the wellness and rehabilitation of our injured veterans and ultimately their transition back to civilian life. It is not intended to provide lifelong financial dependence unless that is the only option. It is all about getting the veterans and their families rehabilitated and back to a life of their own choice and under their own control.

It works alongside other benefits and programs from the Government of Canada, such as the service income security insurance plan, and ensures that military personnel who are seriously injured while on duty will see an increase in overall compensation the moment they leave the forces.

Our government has applied many changes that work to benefit veterans and their families, such as adding new monthly benefits so that veterans are not just receiving a single payment if they are seriously injured. We have also changed the single payment or lump sum so that veterans can break it out into smaller payments spread out in any way they like.

We also realize that the system is far too complex, like any system that has evolved over many decades. There was one payment for this situation and another for that. There were these forms and those forms. It does get very complicated. We are trying very hard to simplify that and cut through the red tape.

Qualifying veterans now have access to five different monthly payments in addition to the lump sum. It was said that a lump sum would kick them to the curb; that could not be further from the truth. Those who are seriously injured and need the help will get it in the form of the earnings lost benefit while they are in rehabilitation. They will get it, and that goes till age 65. That has now been added to by the retirement income security benefit, which now extends that benefit for life. We might call that a pension.

They are also compensated monthly with the permanent impairment allowance, and for those more seriously injured, the permanent impairment allowance supplement. Those go for life. We might call those a pension.

Also, for the worst off, there is the Canadian Forces income support, and I have already mentioned that we are adding the retirement income security benefit.

Over the coming months we will be examining options for consolidating all veterans' benefits so we can provide those veterans who need it the most with a single monthly payment. They would get all those things I just talked about but instead of five payments showing up in their bank account, they would get one. They will still get a breakout as to where it comes from, but this simplifies the process and cuts down the red tape and confusion.

We have vastly increased post-secondary training, allowing veterans to benefit from two distinct retraining programs, one with DND, another with Veterans Affairs, as they transition from the Canadian Armed Forces. One of these benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada is a retraining allowance of $75,800 to do post-secondary training. We have loosened up all the restrictions on that. It is extremely flexible, even to the point where if the veteran cannot use it, the veteran's spouse can. Therefore, the family unit can make progress and get back to a life under its control.

We have also worked with and listened to many of the veteran stakeholder groups, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Ombudsman. The Veterans Ombudsman and the Canadian Forces Ombudsman are now working hand and glove on all matters.

At the veterans affairs committee, we sat through dozens of meetings and met dozens of witnesses. Certain items were identified that needed fixing. Between the measures already taken as a result of the recommendations, every one of which was acted on, contrary to some things members might hear, and the introduction of Bill C-58, which is now a key component of our budget implementation bill, our government has addressed each and every one of those items and each and every one of the recommendations in that report, specifically compensation after age 65 for our most seriously injured veterans. I mentioned that the earnings loss benefit and rehabilitation goes to age 65. That was the cut off. We have now extended it under the retirement income security benefit for life. Add to that the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement for life. Together, those are pretty nice pensions.

We have addressed the disparity in benefits between reserve and regular force veterans. If a reservist goes to Afghanistan and gets a leg blown off, it does not just affect the reservist's career if he or she stays in the reserves, it would obviously affect his or her life career, whatever that happens to be. Therefore, it only made sense that those two soldiers be treated equally. That is now the case.

We have addressed the problem that there were too few supports for family members of our seriously injured veterans. We have extended more of those benefits to them because when soldiers suffer, and I use the word “soldier” as a generic term, meaning army, navy or air force, for whatever reason, the families suffer, so we have to address the family unit because that is what needs to be fixed.

We have introduced post-65 support for survivors and widows of veterans who had died either in service or from a service-related injury. That is an important change. I know a number of the widows of the Afghanistan soldiers who died who are very pleased with that.

We have created compensation for veterans who are seriously injured but who may also completely recover after years of hospital rehabilitation treatment. At the end of the day, they may not need a big lump sum but they certainly need something to compensate for the pain and suffering while they are going through that treatment process, whether they are recovering from surgery or whatever it might be. Therefore, we introduced the new critical injury benefit, which is a tax-free amount of $70,000 and is immediate and upfront.

We have introduced important new supports for the families of Canadian veterans. We understand that those who stand beside our veterans play a key role in helping them successfully transition to civilian life. If the family member is not in good condition to help the member, then the family unit will not work.

We are making real and significant progress.

This government is also committed to closing the seam between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces. When many veterans leave they have become lost in the gap between DND and VAC, and that is changing rapidly now. They are out there not as a soldier anymore but not holding hands with VAC yet, maybe because they have not come forward or they do not understand what is available because they have not seen the advertising that was put out there to tell them what is available so they can get those services. They tend to fall through a gap sometimes.

What this means is that is our legislation includes new authorities allowing Veterans Affairs to evaluate the applications of veterans while they are still serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, before they even become a veteran.

Each year, 5,000 to 6,000 men and women retire from the military to civilian life. That adds some highly qualified and character-rich civilians to help Canada prosper in all the ways that they do. About 1,200 of those people are medical releases. Unfortunately, the majority of retiring members present their case to Veterans Affairs only after leaving life in uniform. That is changing. The average time spent before they are released medically is between three and five years. During that time frame, they are being evaluated, they are going to rehab and they are also getting paid 100% of their military salary whether they are doing a military job or not.

Some of these delays in seeking programs create an uneasy transition for veterans and their families alike. Some get lost in the transition. However, what is happening is that the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs are holding hands all the way through the process. The soldier, before he becomes a veteran, will be dealing with Veterans Affairs so that when he leaves, there is no gap. It is a seamless transition.

I am pleased to say that we have also taken concrete steps to support a veteran's transition to civilian life in other ways. We are ensuring that contact between medically releasing members and Veterans Affairs is made at the earliest point possible, long before the member actually walks out the door of the Canadian Forces and becomes a veteran.

We are ensuring that rehabilitation professionals are identified as early in the transition process as possible and where the veteran intends to reside after his or her medical release.

The benefits the veteran expects to get will be adjudicated before he or she leaves the Canadian Armed Forces. Again, it would be a seamless transition, so when the soldier becomes a veteran, everything is already there.

More money is going into research to better understand the transition from military to civilian life, to guide suicide prevention activities, to improve the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illness in veterans, and to support the development of national standards and a certification process for psychiatric service dogs, to name just a few.

Extending more psychological counselling to families of veterans is also important. That includes parents and children. By the end of the year, an established network of 26 operational stress injury clinics will be there to support the needs of veterans.

There is also a four-year pilot project to increase access to military family resource centres and related services in seven locations. Traditionally, the services and programs offered through these centres have been available only to still serving members of the military and their families. This is a tremendous resource. I have seen it in action often. It gives them access to a wide range of services to help address their needs as they transition to civilian life. Those services will now be available to veterans and their families.

All of this work builds on progress made by our government to improve benefits and support for Canadian veterans.

There is always more to do, and there always will be more that we will be trying to do. However, the key word is progress, and that is what we are making. The government continues to demonstrate true appreciation for veterans and their families. The key components are care, compassion, and respect.

As we continue to improve the way we care for veterans and their families, we do so with three objectives in mind. First is to have a veteran-centric approach to everything we do. Everything has to be about the veterans and their families. Second is to facilitate a successful transition from military service to civilian life by closing the seam between the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs. Third is to strive for excellence and make access to services easier by reducing red tape and eliminating administrative burdens.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs has reached out and listened to veterans organizations and advocates. He has established and maintained an open dialogue that continues to grow and is a continuous source of knowledge and inspiration. Recently he had a very successful stakeholder summit.

We will continue to focus on our Canadian Armed Forces members and our veterans and to adapt and improve our service to them. That is why in addition to the new measures introduced we are putting more resources where they are needed to ensure service excellence. Case managers offer the front-line service that is critically important to veterans. My own niece, Beverly Martin, is one of the leading case managers in the western part of the country.

The minister has taken action and announced last month that more than 100 permanent, full-time case managers will be hired to improve one-on-one service. Effectively, veterans' needs will be addressed more quickly and efficiently. We know that, and we are taking action. The target is an optimal 30 case-managed veterans for each case manager. Better service and flexibility will allow better access to the services needed by veterans as a result.

Our government also committed the financial resources for the department to hire more than 100 new disability benefits staff, both temporary and permanent. That means that veterans and their families will have faster access to disability benefits, health care, and mental health treatment.

Our government is striving for service excellence and to ensure that veterans are treated with care, compassion, and respect. We are evaluating options for considering consolidating all Veterans Affairs benefits into one single, clear, and easy-to-understand benefits system. One might call it a pension. The goal is to reduce stress on the injured soldiers as they transition to civilian life. We understand that any administrative process that serves to delay or complicate support needs to be fixed quickly.

Even more importantly, if an administrative hurdle or form actually goes so far as to impact the overall wellness of a veteran, there is something seriously wrong, because everything VAC is structured to do is to help ease the burden of transition for a veteran after a service injury.

Speaking of forms, that has come up. I have a form that has been questioned. It is called “Medical Questionnaire: Activities of Daily Living”.

That form is 11 pages long, and it is a little bit complex, but it is designed for every veteran who is receiving benefits. The whole form is designed to ensure that the member's condition is still there and that the services and benefits that they are receiving are still relevant. If they are not, it ensures that changes are made so that they are improved. The whole form is all about making sure that the veteran is getting the service that he or she needs, and nothing else.

It is understandable why someone with PTSD might read something into some of the questions, but nowhere on that form does it say anything about missing limbs.

Our government also took action, and last year announced the addition of a new operational stress injury clinic in Halifax. There is also a network, that I think I mentioned, of 26 operational stress injury clinics across Canada, and they will be expanded to speed up access for mental health services for those with mental health conditions. These clinics play a key role in providing specialized assessment, diagnosis and treatment services for veterans and their families who are living with operational stress injuries.

These and many more actions are being taken to improve the programs, benefits and services that Canada's veterans and their families need and deserve. I urge all members of the NDP and the House to support the measures included in the support for veterans and their families act and in the economic action plan. We are committed to ensuring that veterans and their families have the support and services that they need. Under our government, benefits for veterans have gone in one direction, which is up.

The other thing that has come up a number of times is the lapsed funds, which shows a deliberate misunderstanding, because I know that they understand how it works. Those who have been in government certainly understand how it works. It shows a deliberate representation that is not accurate.

Funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs or any other department are allocated through authorizations. Those funds are forecast. If we need more in any department, we go back and ask for more. If we forecast something and we need less, it is often because the demand is not there. All of these programs are demand driven. If there is a demand, the funds will be spent without question. If the demand is not there, we are not taking funds away from something that could have been done. The demand was not there. If it had been there, it would have been met. Consider it a line of credit. At the beginning of the year, we fill up the line of credit. At the end of the year, if we have not used it all, the line of credit goes back and it gets re-issued again next year.

We are not talking about $1.3 billion that has gone to somebody else. That is simply not true. Anybody over there who has been in government knows that, or should know that. If the demand is there, it does get met.

We also understand that the needs of veterans are changing. As new conflicts arise around the globe, as the previous generation comes to retirement age, and as the nature of treating injuries becomes ever more sophisticated, so too must the support provided to veterans be enhanced, especially for those who have been injured in the course of service. Before tabling the support for veterans and their families act, we consulted with veterans and their families in communities across Canada on the best ways to support them and to support those who bravely served our nation through the years.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I do know first-hand that all of the veterans affairs experts were consulted prior to developing the new veterans charter moving forward. These are supports that the members in the House have called for, including the NDP, and rightly so. These are supports that the Veterans Ombudsman has called for. These are supports that veterans and their families have called for. We have responded and we understand that there will still always be more that we need to do, because we want to adapt to changes as they come about.

The increased benefits that we recently announced are evidence of our commitment to ensuring that Canadian veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion and respect. We know that there is an obligation. It has been recognized as far back as by Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden, but we are not frozen in time. Every single government from Robert Borden on has tried its very best to honour that obligation. In fact, our government tabled support for the support for veterans and their families act, which included the following purpose written in the act:

The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled.

This purpose, coupled with our strong action in support of veterans and their families, shows that we do understand the value and importance of providing those who have served our country with the support that they need and deserve. I am heartened by the new team at the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of whom are veterans, including the minister, the parliamentary secretary, the deputy minister and many others in critical positions.

It is not time to play politics, but I know that is inevitable in this place. I urge the NDP and all members of the House to work with us for the health and well-being of Canada's veterans and their families. The Conservatives are supporting this motion, even though we know it is intended to be political, we know it is intended to wedge us, but we support it because it is the right thing to do and, in fact, it is what we are already doing.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that I will be splitting my time with the great member for the beautiful riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Before I start speaking on today's motion, I want to give a plug for the Royal Canadian Dental Corps. It has supported the Canadian Armed Forces in every major combat, peacekeeping and peacemaking mission around the world for the last century, including World War I, World War II, Korea, the Balkans and Afghanistan. Its members have also worked with Kosovo refugees, trained mid-level providers for the Afghan National Army, provided oral health for Haitian earthquake victims and cared for under-served populations in the Pacific and Caribbean on U.S. navy missions.

These men and women have done a great service for our country, and today I would like to congratulate them on behalf of the entire House on the centennial of the Royal Canadian Dental Corps. As of May 13, it will have been in service for over 100 years. On behalf of all of us, I want to thank the Royal Canadian Dental Corps for its outstanding historic service, and for its many years to come.

We are here today to ask one simple question, which is what we do in opposition. We ask the government of the day a particular question. Ironically, this question has taken us all day, and we still have not gotten a confirmed answer. I myself have asked the following question probably 10 times to two different ministers, a prime minister and two different parliamentary secretaries, and even did a press conference on it with no response. We are asking the government a very simple question: Does it or does it not have a social, moral, legal and fiduciary responsibility to care for those it asked to put in harm's way?

It is funny, a former Conservative prime minister, Mr. Borden, once said that the government did. I wonder if the current Conservative Party does as well. However, we will find out soon enough from the votes here.

I will get back to the matter at hand regarding veterans' care.

First of all, I want to congratulate the new minister on his posting. There is no question that there is a different tone now from the previous minister. No offence to the previous minister, but it just was not his cup of tea I guess in this regard, to be completely frank, but it is not entirely his fault. The previous minister was following orders from the PMO and the PCO in how to run his department. However, the reality is, there is a different tone now and we see a different yard mark coming from the current minister.

The previous speaker is also on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We did a report that was unanimous. In this House, getting a unanimous report from a committee is almost impossible these days, but we did it. There were 14 recommendations that we all agreed should be done immediately; not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, not piecemeal, but all 14 recommendations should be done immediately.

In fact, three-quarters of those recommendations are now approaching five years in recommendations; not one year, not five months, but five years. Some of these recommendations have come from the Royal Canadian Legion, the gerontological advisory board, the government's own advisory board on Veterans Affairs, ANAVETS and many other veterans and individuals who had come up with these recommendations many years ago. We formulated them into a report, and what do we do get six months to the day of that report?

Well, the previous minister said that we were going to do this in a piecemeal approach. The thing is, he was telling the truth, because Bill C-58 that the government talks about now is dealing with about three or four of those recommendations. We have not had Bill C-58 even come up for debate yet in the House let alone before the committee, let alone before the Senate, let alone before royal assent. The government is telling us to push it forward, but we have not even seen it again yet.

Now if the government is amiable to some alterations and amendments to the bill, I am sure we can get it passed like that, because there are some good elements in that legislation. However, in typical Conservative fashion, it falls woefully inadequate on the recommendations that were in our report.

I want to thank the current veterans ombudsman and the previous ombudsman for the work they have done in advising our committee on many of these things.

Let us go to the history of the Conservative Party. The current minister is the 11th minister we have had in my almost 18 years of service here. The problems with Veterans Affairs and the RCMP and their families did not start with the Conservative Party. They started long before with the Liberal Party. However, these problems have been exacerbated by the current Conservative Party.

Let me take everyone back to a meeting in New Brunswick in 2005 when the current Prime Minister was in opposition and Greg Thompson was a former minister of veterans affairs. When the Liberals were in power, they said in the Agent Orange or chemical spraying in Gagetown debate that they were only going to cover people for Agent Orange in 1966 and 1967, for the one month each time, when the Americans were there. They said that was what they were going to do. The Liberals said that.

Mr. Thompson was brilliant in his advocacy against that. He said there was no way the Liberals could allow that and that the Conservative Party, if it formed government, would never do that. In fact, the current Prime Minister, who was then in opposition, said the exact same thing. At a meeting, he said that all people affected by the chemical spraying in Gagetown from 1958 to 1984 would be looked after and there would be a public inquiry.

What happened in 2006? Those words were out the door. In fact, thousands and thousands of people have died because of the chemical spraying in Gagetown and very little in compensation was offered. I think around 7,000 people actually received what I call a $20,000 kiss-off. Many people, like Basil McAllister of Burton, New Brunswick, had to fight three VRAB decisions, two court cases over 10 years, to get further compensation for the chemicals that were sprayed on him.

Fortunately, though, people can rest assured that when the NDP forms government in October, we will have a national public inquiry into the chemical spraying in Gagetown. That is unacceptable and that is what we will do.

The money from the offices closed by the government went into advertising during the Stanley Cup playoffs. New Democrats will reverse that. We will not only reopen the offices but make them better than they were before and ensure that many more home visits happen for veterans who may wish to have someone come to their homes and fill out the forms properly. That is what we will do when we form government. In fact, there are many other things that we will do when we form government. Right now, we just have to wait and be patient. Soon it will be time for the Conservatives to find the exit door. I say that with great respect, of course, to my Conservative counterparts.

Let us go back to another promise the Prime Minister made to Joyce Carter of St. Peter's, Cape Breton. He told her in a letter, which he signed, not to worry because when Conservatives form government, as prime minister he would ensure that every single widow or widower of a deceased veteran would receive VIP service, not some of them, not a couple, not from New Brunswick, not from Nova Scotia, not from B.C., all would receive the VIP treatment. What happened? Almost four years after that date, some of them got the VIP treatment, not all of them.

That was another broken promise to the widow of a veteran. If someone can mislead the widow of a veteran, imagine what else that person could do to this country. That means nobody else is safe. It is unconscionable that the Prime Minister could have done that, absolutely unconscionable. She actually even had to come here to get that benefit. Unfortunately, not all of them received it even though it was promised to them.

Just today in the House of Commons the Minister of Veterans Affairs was asked a question. By the way, I should let every Conservative in the House know that every single time I have ever asked a question in the House of Commons, I have always provided the question in advance to the minister. Even though my own party completely dislikes that, I do it out of respect for the position of the minister.

The question was quite clearly about a 78-year-old veteran who served many years in the military, is injured, does not have much to live on, and wishes to enter into Camp Hill veterans hospital, run and administered by the Province of Nova Scotia, as World War II and Korean veterans do now. The province pays a small portion and the Government of Canada, through DVA, pays the rest. Twice now the minister asked whether I have lobbied the province to get him in there. I remind my Conservative colleagues that I have yet to see any legislation from anyone that says the care of veterans is a provincial responsibility. It is a federal responsibility.

On behalf of my party, I hope the Conservatives and other parties will join us in supporting this motion because it is critical that we do this. I want to say, in conclusion, that we should never regret growing old because it is a privilege denied to so many.

Lest we forget.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this motion today, because Canadian veterans are our heroes, and they should be treated with the utmost respect and provided with all the support we can possible give.

Conservatives continuously remind us to support our troops—we hear it all the time—but fail to understand that support must continue once those Canadian Forces are no longer active and they become veterans. We owe them that much. We were, and are, a country engaged in modern-day conflicts in places like Somalia, Bosnia, Lebanon, Cyprus, East Timor, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

Our troops have answered the call to assist communities jeopardized by floods, earthquakes, ice storms, forest fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes domestically and around the world. However, Veterans Affairs Canada has not adapted to the very real needs of the veterans of the modern day. This government has failed to support the obligations we owe veterans who served in the great wars, in Korea, and on peacekeeping missions.

In fact, because of the shortsightedness of the Conservative government, our relationship with our veterans has been damaged and diminished rather than enhanced. Older veterans were told to learn to use the Internet, for example, for continued service when local VAC offices faced service reductions and closures.

The Conservatives have cut—and this has been said a number of times—more than 900 jobs from Veterans Affairs since 2009. That is 23% of the workforce.

Compensation for funerals under the Last Post Fund has not kept up with the actual costs, leaving cash-strapped veterans and their families to pay the difference. Veterans requiring long-term care beds have been shuffled off to provincial jurisdictions because they have had the misfortune of outliving their life expectancy.

The ministry refuses to extend our obligation as a courtesy to them beyond the contracted dates. These are veterans with special needs who need special care as a result of their service to our country.

New Democrats have long advocated for the continuation of the veterans long term care program. The rates of homelessness and suicide among our veteran population are horrifying, but testimony to that fact and effects of post-traumatic stress are not being seriously addressed. Families are left without the supports they need to deal with younger veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress, and injured veterans with obvious disabilities as a result of their service must suffer the delay and humiliation of proving to the department over and over again that they have been disabled, in order that they continue to receive support.

The current government's Bill C-58, as proposed, is a good start, but many veterans feel it just doesn't go far enough in enhancing programs and services for all veterans and their families under the new charter. New Democrats agree with these veterans and their families. That is part of why we have chosen to dedicate this opposition day to point out that financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled, or died as a result of military service, and to their dependents, must improve. We have a moral, social, and legal as well as fiduciary obligation to do that.

Dr. Pierre Morisset, a retired major general and the chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee for Veterans' Health, was a witness before the veterans affairs committee last year, and he said, “When a soldier leaves the forces and is officially known as a veteran, then he's treated in the civilian health sector”. Dr. Morisset went on to say that the civilian health care system is “not necessarily tuned to the reality of what kind of life the soldier may have had”.

Similarly, Dr. Ruth Stewart of Athabasca University argued that:

The Canadian Forces represent a distinct culture, containing distinct subcultures. They possess unique languages, norms, and customs, and are socially stratified to a degree completely foreign to most north American civilians.

Once a soldier leaves the military, he or she is left to the care of civilian doctors who will do their best, but they do not have the expertise to deal with the specific issues veterans face. Veterans are our national heroes and, as such, they are a federal responsibility and should be looked after by the federal government. They are not, as the government believes, a problem to be dismissed, undervalued, or offloaded to the provinces.

This Parliament's veterans affairs committee identified three core themes for the study resulting in the new veterans charter: care and support of the most seriously disabled, support for families, and improving how Veterans Affairs Canada delivers the programs, services, and benefits of the new charter.

The Conservatives' Bill C-58 would only partly address some of the 14 recommendations contained in that unanimous report. It would, for instance, only provide assistance to help 100 of the most seriously injured.

The NDP believes that we have the obligation, and capability, to help all veterans and their families.

New Democrats will push for the retirement income security benefits to be increased from 70%, as outlined in the bill, to 100% of what the veterans received in VAC financial benefits before age 65, to ensure that veterans have financial stability.

The critical injury benefit proposed under Bill C-58 would provide a $70,000 tax-free award to support the most severely injured and ill Canadian Forces members and veterans. However, under the proposed criteria for qualification, only two or three people per year would qualify. This is simply not good enough for our veterans. They have given their lives and their careers for this country.

We have also heard from veterans who are disappointed in the government for not addressing the disparities and unfairness related to lump-sum disability payments, as compared with civilian court awards for pain and suffering.

Scott Maxwell, executive director of Wounded Warriors Canada, said the new benefits under Bill C-58 would go to just 1% of all severely disabled vets and Sean Bruyea, veteran advocate, has expressed similar concerns.

Injured and disabled vets should not have to fight their own government in court for the compensation and care they deserve, but sadly, this has become all too common under the current government.

If the Conservatives are serious about improving the care of our veterans, they should stop fighting those veterans in court and recognize our historic covenant.

Today, New Democrats are calling upon the government to restore our country's relationship with the veterans to one that is based upon respect rather than neglect.

Instead of including provisions to assist veterans in an omnibus budget bill—a cynical attempt to force opposition parties that support the measures for veterans to vote against them—the Conservatives should recognize the historic covenant that we share with veterans and honour it with decisive action.

I would like to speak, now, about the proud history of military service in London, Ontario.

I cherish the relationship I have been able to foster with the veterans in my community who have served us so well over the years. Their participation in our community enriches all of us. They support hospitals, young athletes, the homeless, the wounded, and the forgotten. I feel very privileged to stand with our veterans in the community.

Perhaps members have heard of the proposed demolition of many buildings at Wolseley Barracks, including the historic officers' mess. Bob Marshall, president of the Duchess of Kent Legion, would like to see the officers' mess repurposed as the Legion's new home, rather than demolition.

This is a reasonable proposal, a win for the Legion, a win for Wolseley Barracks, and a win for the community. I am fully behind it. I hope that the Minister of Defence has had time to consider this proposal adequately and that he will support it.

I would also like to remind the House that, when in opposition, the Conservatives promised they would make significant veteran reforms. Sadly, after nearly a decade in office, they have done little to address the gaping holes in the services offered Canadian veterans and their families. In fact, they have gone so far as to challenge the existence of our sacred covenant with those veterans.

The Conservatives have forgotten our veterans and the contribution of modern-day Canadian Forces veterans and RCMP who served in peacekeeping around the world. That is absolutely unacceptable. Canadians are passionate and proud in our gratitude for our veterans.

During Remembrance Week and beyond, Canadians choose to honour the men and women who gave us a strong and free country. It is long past time for our federal government to likewise honour all veterans, both past and present, by serving their needs.

Monuments and parades are lovely, but they are cold comfort to the veterans and families who are suffering neglect.

It is time to mean what we say when we repeat the promise to remember. It must be accompanied by real action. That is what New Democrats are promising and proposing today with this motion

The NDP is the only party with a comprehensive veterans policy that we intend to implement when we become the government of this great country.

I am proud to support today's motion. I hope everyone in this House will do so also.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote directly from the bill's statement of its purpose and then ask for a response from the member. The bill states:

The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled.

It is no doubt a wonderful platitude that is being expressed in the purpose of the legislation that the minister just made reference to, but I wonder if the member would provide some comment regarding the reality. Does she believe that the reality of the last few years reflects the actual purpose of Bill C-58 and what the minister is talking about?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the wording of the bill in front of me, but the minister does know that there are parts of Bill C-58 that the NDP can support. However, the problem is that when Conservatives put everything plus the kitchen sink together, it forces those of us who want to support good parts of legislation to vote against the whole, because we cannot include these other egregious parts.

I do not understand why the government does not want to work with opposition parties to establish what can we agree on here. Is there some piece that we can pull out and work on together?

The minister had some very good words about the veterans charter. This motion actually talks about creating the fiduciary duty with this covenant. That fiduciary duty would give the government a chance to pause and have a second thought about how its actions are reflecting that fiduciary duty, especially when we look at the money, time, and energy that has been taken by the government to fight veterans in courts.

I would hope that having a fiduciary duty would give the government pause before it embarks on these kinds of lawsuits that are so wasteful of everybody's time and money.

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for her remarks. Certainly she knows that I served in the military in Halifax for a number of years before we met at Dalhousie law school. I am glad that she talked about the important role that the Military Family Resource Centre in Halifax plays, as well as the one at Shearwater as part of the larger Halifax Regional Municipality.

I was struck by her comments confirming what I have said many times, which is that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are, indeed, us. They are Canadians from all walks of life and all parts of the country who step forward to serve.

That is why the veterans charter was created. It was to move to a system that looked at rehabilitation, wellness, and family, and that allowed for supports not just for physical injuries but for mental injuries. That is why it was brought in by the Liberals in 2005. That is why it is still a good system with the fixes that we have in Bill C-58, with the retirement income security benefit, critical injury benefit, family caregiver benefit, and a number of modernizing updates to the veterans charter.

My question for her is twofold. First, as the deputy leader of her party, can she urge her leadership to get behind Bill C-58? Most of Bill C-58 was agreed upon unanimously by the standing committee, including her critic, so why do we not move this measure through the House? It represents benefits and improvements to families.

More importantly, I have said that we support the motion brought forward today, but the purpose clause in Bill C-58 that talks about the obligation actually goes further. It includes all veterans and our obligation to all veterans, not just those who are injured, and it directly states that it should be liberally construed, which is what the standing committee wanted. By getting behind Bill C-58, we go further than the motion brought forward today by the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I would ask her to get her party to support it.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too, as a member of Parliament, have veterans come to my office. As a member of Parliament, I provide the direction they need and the assistance they need.

Through Veterans Affairs Canada, the programs and services are in place. As I mentioned in my comments, I had an opportunity to attend a breakfast the other morning where two veterans spoke. These are veterans who have achieved those services. They knew where to go, and they had assistance.

I think it is the role of all of us as members of Parliament to make sure that we are reaching out to our veterans. I do that through my office, and my staff does that. I am sure the member opposite does that. It is the role of a member of Parliament.

I reiterate that the services are there, and our new legislation, Bill C-58, would expand upon those services. It is a fantastic piece of legislation that would benefit our veterans. I would really like to thank our Minister of Veterans Affairs for bringing this bill forward and his predecessors for their work in bringing this forward. It was one of the recommendations brought forward by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, on which I am so proud to serve.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke Centre.

I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I actually asked to be on this committee because I care very much about the well-being of our Canadian Armed Forces, and I care because I am an air force brat, travelling the world with my parents and siblings for 17 years, my father having had a distinguished 37-year career in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Both of my sisters and brother-in-law also served their country very well, again, in the Royal Canadian Air Force. My immediately family has over 100 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am the only one who did not have military service, so as a member of the veterans affairs committee, this is my way of giving back to armed forces and veterans to the very best of my ability. As a committee, we have recommended substantial improvements, many of which the government has adopted.

Canadians recently marked the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands and Victory in Europe Day, or VE Day, as we call it. I know a number of our colleagues had the opportunity to be there and experience that. We all saw Canada's veterans being welcomed with open arms by grateful Dutch citizens. We saw friendships rekindled and happy reunions, along with very moving ceremonies.

We also know that things did not simply go back to normal for many of our brave Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen and women when they returned home after the war was over.

Certainly for Canadian Armed Forces members today, a homecoming may not be the easy return to the routine one might expect. Rather, for some, they return to a different world. A loving home, one hopes, but a jarring new reality shaped by severe and perhaps permanent injury or illness. Home may now be a place of stress, of uncertainty, of what may seem to be insurmountable challenges. That is as true for family members as it is for the full-time armed forces member, the reservist or the veteran.

This was painfully clear last week, as I attended the second annual Sam Sharpe breakfast, held in his honour to recognize the struggle of Canadian servicemen and women who suffer from operational stress injuries and to highlight individuals and organization dedicated to assisting Canadian Forces members, their families and veterans.

Many may not be aware, but Lieutenant-Colonel Sam Sharpe was first elected to the House of Commons in 1908 as the sitting member for Ontario North at the start of World War I. After suffering mental injuries on the front, he returned to Canada and took his own life on May 25, 1918, at a Montreal hospital.

During the breakfast, we heard two very emotional stories of how PTSD impacted the lives of two of our veterans and how, with the help of services provided through Veterans Affairs, they were managing their PTSD, although, and this message was very clear, they would never be the same.

The people in the Government of Canada have a duty to such brave men and women in need of immediate and perhaps lifelong assistance. They must know that we are here for them. They must never doubt the intensity or sincerity of our care, compassion and respect.

I know I speak for all members in this place when I say that while politics may differ or approaches, ultimately every member of Parliament, from the government and the opposition benches, supports our veterans and expects the highest level of assistance to those in need.

That said, I am concerned with the political undertones of the NDP motion. I am troubled that the New Democrats have proposed this language a month after our government tabled the largest improvement to veterans benefits and supports since forming government. While I agree with the spirit of the motion and the vast majority of what is said in it, I am disappointed with the New Democrats for their continued political manoeuvring, using the noble cause of supporting Canada's veterans.

Perhaps many know, last week our government tabled economic action plan 2015 act. In particular, there is a section that proposes a series of new benefits for veterans and families affected by injury and illness sustained during service to Canada.

This bill also presents a welcome statement of purpose for the new veterans charter, one that goes far beyond the motion being debated here today and that would be formally legislated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. It reads:

The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled.

I hope the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam will support this purpose clause contained in Bill C-58 when the time comes to vote for it in Parliament in the coming weeks.

I was proud to have played a part in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. So many of the recommendations have been adopted by the government, including adding a new retirement benefit so that veterans have stable, reliable monthly income after age 65.

I want to make something very clear in this debate. Our government has a tremendous obligation to provide assistance to members and veterans of our forces who have been injured as a result of military service. We have an obligation as well to the families of those injured while in service.

I would like to take a few moments to highlight the new retirement income security benefit, which is arguably the largest of the new benefits we have introduced as a government over the past few months. The new retirement income security benefit would directly address this issue for moderately to severely disabled veterans and survivors. Beginning at age 65, eligible veterans would continue to receive monthly benefits totalling at least 70% of Veterans Affairs Canada's financial benefits received before the age of 65. This benefit would be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account other sources of income beyond the age of 65.

The key word here is “security”. As per our government's veteran-centred approach, potential recipients in receipt of financial benefits administered by Veterans Affairs would be contacted before they reached the age of 65 to ensure a smooth transition to that security. For disabled Canadian Armed Forces veterans nearing 65, that would mean being better able to save for retirement and anticipate future earnings. Further, when that veteran passed on, his or her survivor would continue to receive approximately 50% of this lifelong monthly payment.

This was one of the key recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I am so pleased that the government acted swiftly to include it. I look forward to the recommendations being put forward and passed by the government.

Lest we forget.

Veterans

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, being on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, we have before the House Bill C-58, which is the most substantive set of reforms to veterans' benefits and programs in a generation. We have the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit, the family caregiver relief benefit, on top of improvements to permanent impairment allowance, and our commitment to top up case managers and processing for disability benefits. We are moving at a furious pace to address these needs.

Bill C-58 has a purpose statement, which outlines the obligation we owe to the men and women who served us. I truly hope that by bringing this motion today, the New Democrats will also move forward and support Bill C-58 in the House.

Opposition Motion--Care for Veterans

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for his speech. Certainly there were eloquent and very respectable parts of the speech and his talk about Vimy was very engaging. Some of the political stunts in it were a little unfortunate because it detracted from some otherwise powerful statements.

The member focused a few times on closing the gap. What caused this gap? I know that the member only joined this place in 2008, so I would suggest as veterans critic for the third party that he should speak to the Liberal member for Markham—Unionville. That member and the Liberal party created the new veterans charter. All members of the House at the time voted for it. The member was not there, nor was I, but the gaps we are talking about closing are Liberal gaps. He should do some research with the member for Markham—Unionville.

That said, let us take the politics out and say what we have addressed from the standing committee's report. A vast majority of the moves have been made to fix those gaps that all parties agreed on.

Today, the NDP motion does not even go as far as recommendation 2 in that ACVA report. Our obligation statement in Bill C-58 gets it done. Will the member support Bill C-58?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

My colleague is also a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In May 2014, almost a year ago, following a study of the new veterans charter, we submitted a unanimous report on our observations and on ways to improve the charter.

To arrive at this unanimous report that all parties supported, I must admit that we watered down some of our positions to reach a joint agreement with the government, in order to present it to the minister and ask him to make the necessary changes to the new veterans charter.

Recent announcements include a very small minority of the things that were in the report, so much so, that I feel like we were swindled. By coming up with a unanimous report, we were under the impression that the government had no choice but to apply all these recommendations, which it did not.

What are my colleague's comments about the recommendations made with regard to the introduction of Bill C-58?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the focus of our veterans' mental wellness event last week at the Sam Sharpe breakfast was on telling the stories of some veterans who have become well after struggling with post-traumatic stress.

Roméo Dallaire likes to tell me not to ever say individuals recover, because they learn to cope, learn what programs work for them. Therefore we need to tell more stories, because if anyone is out there struggling with mental injuries from service or with mental health—men and women in uniform for Canada are Canadians, so we will have mental health issues—they need to come forward because there are great new programs in which we have been investing. Members need to get behind that. That is why we have been enhancing these benefits. Bill C-58 is yet another step in that road to enhancing care for our veterans.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned veterans who have taken their own lives. As we know, many veterans suffer from PTSD and it is a very unfortunate statistic that there have been more suicides of Afghanistan vets than were actually killed there. We all recognize the benefits that are needed for our soldiers.

Will the minister support separating Bill C-58 from the budget omnibus bill?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for that question and his passionate work on support for families with ill members in their homes, both young and old, and his work on palliative care. It is admired.

We are very proud of the family caregiver relief benefit that is in Bill C-58, one of the reasons why I urge members of the House to pass it. We would provide more support for the families of our critically injured.

The goal of the new veterans charter, and indeed Veterans Affairs in recent decades, is to provide the supports to keep the veterans in their homes as long as possible. That is part of wellness, to be with their family, to be with the people they know and trust in an environment with which they are comfortable. The veterans independence program all the way through to respite care being done by Veterans Affairs focuses on keeping our ill, injured, or very elderly in their homes. We have other provisions within our budget to apply that to more Canadians, but the family caregiver relief benefit would be a tax-free benefit of almost $8,000 a year that would give families that extra flexibility.

We are also trying to make it as administratively simple as possible, so that if spouses need to attend a child's graduation and know there is someone in the home, that Veterans Affairs is caring for their loved one, but not before 9 o'clock or not in the evening, and they need to fly in a sister or brother or to hire professional help to fill that gap, we want them to have that so that their wellness as the family caregiver for the support for that veteran is sound, so that they do not have caregiver fatigue, which we know happens.

This is just one of many reforms we have had in recent years, providing more support in the homes of veterans and more support to families dealing with operational stress injuries in the home. This is yet another reason for the opposition to vote in favour of Bill C-58.

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for that sort of warm and fuzzy comment alongside a back of the hand. I want to thank him for his service before his time in the House, both on the sea and in the upper air for Canada. It is appreciated.

He is absolutely right in terms of the lack of moral fibre, the nervous shock, and the nervous breakdown. That is what Sam Sharpe, my predecessor in the House 100 years ago, returned from World War I with, as was said in The Globe and Mail. He had a nervous breakdown. Sadly, he leapt from the window of the Royal Victoria Hospital before returning to his riding.

We have come a long way. I hosted the Sam Sharpe breakfast last week with Roméo Dallaire, in part to show that we are making progress. We still have a long way to go, but if we look at our investments in recent years, we will have gone from a couple of operational stress injury clinics to 26 by the end of this year. We are looking at alternative means of support, because there is no one-size-fits-all solution for mental health.

We are also looking for support for the family. That was always the intention of the new veterans charter, to do more for families. The member would remember the old military expression from the time we served in the Canadian Armed Forces: if the military wanted us to have a family, it would issue us one. Now, we look at the family as being the core part of the unit for our military families and veterans. That is why the member's colleague from Markham—Unionville launched us on the new veterans charter route, to have more support for the family and the veteran at transition.

We will continue upon this path. I hope he recommends to his caucus and his leader to unanimously support Bill C-58 and our obligation statement in it.

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought the House together today on a single issue but, by that question, has shown that he has not actually done the research.

He is correct that, on my first day as minister, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore did ask me about the obligation. I quoted Robert Borden, and I called it a tremendous obligation that we owe our veterans. I think that would be in the Hansard around January 26. I invite the member to check it out.

Considering that he has brought us all together to debate this today, I would have hoped that he would at least get my first statements on the obligation as Minister of Veterans Affairs correct. We have a tremendous obligation.

The real question that I would ask him to ask his colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore is why it has taken from 2006 until today for him to bring this before the floor of the House of Commons. As someone who likes to remind the House of how many ministers of veterans affairs he has faced off against, he is the only member of the committee who voted for the new veterans charter. He was on the old SCONDVA committee. There is nobody who knows this file more, and I would suggest that there is nobody who has surfed this file more from time to time.

Our obligation statement in Bill C-58 is closer to the ACVA recommendation that the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked of the House last June. I would ask him to check that out, too.

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the job the translators do. I have been trying to improve my French. I appreciate them being patient with me in that progress.

The RISB, the retirement income security benefit, is a benefit on which we worked. Groups, including the standing committee, identified there was a gap at age 65 for a moderately to severely injured veteran. When the earnings loss benefit ended, an income supplement for veterans while they are transitioning or retraining, for many people who were on that to age 65, there would be a sharp decrease in their income. That was an unintended gap, as I have described it, because the earnings loss benefit was meant as an income replacement while someone was doing job training or re-education. Post-65, it is more of a retirement issue. For those, particularly those injured, who did not have pension time from their time serving with the Canadian Armed Forces, something needed to be done so they did not have a steep drop in income.

Therefore, we introduced the retirement income security benefit, which would mean veterans post-65 would be guaranteed a 70% level of income compared to the year previous, at age 64, from Veterans Affairs. That would provide certainty for veterans and their families in their future, in their retirement years. It would give them that security and peace of mind.

Another is that it will have survivability to the spouse beyond 65. The old pension act does not. The exceptional incapacitation allowance did not have such survivability to a surviving spouse beyond age 65. Therefore, it is enhanced and better addresses the gap identified by the ombudsman a couple of years ago and again last year in the standing committee report.

We also introduced the critical injury benefit, which is still mischaracterized radically by people in the House. I urge the hon. members to actually look into the details. This was not meant to be a benefit that applied to all 700,000 veterans in Canada. It was another benefit earmarked for seriously injured veterans. In particular, it would address circumstances where a veteran was critically hurt, in Afghanistan for instance. I know the NDP members know of a case that is similar to this, where someone went through traumatic injury, hospitalizations and major surgeries, but because the disability award, the so-called lump sum, which is not the only thing seriously injured veterans get, by the way, as our friends still like to imply, was assessed once the individual recovered, the disability award was very low.

The critical injury benefit recognizes and compensates pain and suffering related to that trauma and the period of recovery. It is another gap that we have closed.

We also introduced the family caregiver relief benefit. I worked very closely with military veterans families since I left the military, long before I became a member of Parliament. We all know the incredible strain on the family that a serious injury causes. We need to do more, and our government has done more in recent years by expanding counselling for family members affected by post-traumatic stress or operational stress in the home. More recent, we doubled that. We have allowed families to continue to access the important military family resource centres after their family members leave the military.

The caregiver relief benefit helps the most seriously injured members, who in many cases will have contract care in their home for which Veterans Affairs pay. However, we all know that for the spouse, partner or the adult child, it is a 24/7 job. This allows some respite, with almost $8,000 a year, tax free, to be used to get additional support. It might be to fly in family members so they can recharge their batteries or help with family life.

Over time, I see us doing even more because the new veterans charter actually has programming for families, unlike the old pension act, which did not really have programming and did not anticipate the wellness needs.

Also, beyond Bill C-58, we have expanded the eligibility for hundreds more veterans in the permanent impairment allowance category. PIA is a lifetime benefit. I have also said that I want to wrap the permanent impairment allowance, its supplement and the retirement income security benefit into a lifetime pension for our most seriously injured. We are moving that way. After years of howling, I do not hear anything from opposition. We are making progress, and I do not hear substantive questions on that front.

I have also ensured that we show the respect our reserves deserve, to ensure that class A and class B reserves have the same access to earnings loss benefit as class C and regular force members do. If they are serving their country, they will get that income replacement and vocational rehabilitation up to $75,000 per person, if they are injured.

I have also announced in recent weeks that over 100 case managers will be targeted to specific areas of need, with flexibility built into the system, and a combination of at least 100 more benefit adjudicators to get through the backlog, and we do have a backlog. The Auditor General recognized that, and we are acting on this.

Critically, what is in Bill C-58, which the hon. member who brought forward this motion seems to ignore, is a purpose clause. His motion today about an obligation is in many ways a purpose clause. We have a far superior and advanced clause in C-58, which he apparently either does not know or glossed over. In fact, it reads:

The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled.

Many of my colleagues, and I do consider my colleagues friends on this, talk about sacred obligation, solemn obligation. The obligation is clearly written in Bill C-58. In fact, this motion does not even suggest that it should be liberally construed. In fact, the members have not even followed the guidance the standing committee offered last June. Recommendation 2 from the standing committee said that the provisions of this act should be liberally construed and interpreted to recognize solemn obligation.

I am glad my friend brought this motion today, even though it is flawed and would not go as far as Bill C-58. I am happy to say I will be supporting my friend's motion today. However, I and the government urge him to dig a little deeper to see that the purpose statement, the obligation spelled out in Bill C-58, would go much further and would accord with what the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended last June. His motion would not.

This purpose clause came as a result of looking at what the standing committee produced. It came as a result of talking to veterans groups and veterans organizations. That is what led to the support for veterans and their families act.

At the outset I referred to this. My first day in the House as minister I quoted Sir Robert Borden and the obligation we owed, since Borden's time in 1917, when he first articulated it to our veterans. He termed the line “just and due appreciation that we owe our veterans“. In fact, we have used his language to show the connection from 1917 to today of this obligation. I have termed the obligation “a tremendous obligation”. Whether we call it “solemn”, “sacred”, “tremendous”, it will be enshrined in Bill C-58, which I hope the hon. member looks into further, and gets behind and supports.

I will support what the NDP has brought to the floor today, but I would ask that it go further and join with us and pass Bill C-58 quickly through the House. I included it in the budget implementation act in case the political gamesmanship continued on this file, because I made a solemn, sacred pledge to our veterans to ensure that these reforms and new benefits would pass before July, and they will.

Important to note is that from Borden's time to today we have an obligation that is living in the new veterans charter. The veterans charter is intended to be living, and Bill C-58 breathes new life and new reforms into the new veterans charter brought forward by the Liberals in 2005, implemented and updated in 2011, and updated again before the House now.

The care and benefits of veterans are not frozen in time to 1917. In fact, the Pension Act that emerged after World War I then led to the creation of Veterans Affairs Canada after World War II. Therefore, Borden's obligation predates my department. That is how historic it is. However, in Borden's time there was very little done. In fact, Sam Sharpe, the MP for Ontario North, who was a member of Borden's caucus, died as a result of PTSD in World War I. He was the only sitting MP re-elected to the House in World War I. Mental injuries from service were not even recognized back then.

We have come a long way. The money we are committing and the programs we are delivering in mental health care shows that we have an evolving commitment to meet our needs for our veterans now and in the future. We are doing more for families, for mental health, for alternate therapies such as equine therapy, assistance dogs and service dogs. Those programs were not delivered in the 1950s. We also have the my VAC account. We are doing home visits. Those were not conducted in Borden's time.

This is a positive obligation on the government to constantly ensure we look to the future to meet the needs, the medical programming and the benefits that veterans, their families and their children need. However, we need to recognize that it is an obligation, but not to be frozen in the way it was delivered in 1917 or 1950. I think all members of the House know what progress we have made in many areas of physical and mental rehabilitation for our veterans and their families. We owe it to them to use the new veterans charter as a living document, to use the obligation that we are talking about today, the obligation enshrined in Bill C-58, which we have specifically said should be liberally construed, owing back to the recommendation of George Hees, a minister in the 1980s, to give veterans the benefit of the doubt.

I want to make that even easier. Let us make it easier to get to yes for the veterans. Let us look at new programming that would get them well, back to work and able to support their family members. That is what is in Bill C-58. Therefore, I truly hope the opposition members, by raising the purpose provision of the bill, the obligation, which is very important, it is a principle, dig a little deeper and look at the benefits, programs and reforms we are rolling out to ensure we meet that obligation. Otherwise, it is just talk and posturing.

I will constantly remind the opposition critic for the NDP, who I met when I was a young officer at a base in his riding, that he is the only member of the standing committee who voted for the new veterans charter. He has had since 2006 to bring something like this to the House, but it is here six weeks after we introduced, Bill C-58, the most substantive veterans' legislation in a generation. Let us move past the politics, let us get behind Bill C-58, and pass it.

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a distinct honour to rise in the House to speak on any issue for the riding of Durham, which I represent. Since the beginning of this year, January, it has also been my profound honour to rise in the House as Canada's Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is a huge responsibility for anyone to serve those who have served us, veterans and their families. It is a responsibility I take very seriously and I appreciate the Prime Minister's confidence in me.

It is very special to me as well because I joined the Canadian Armed Forces at 18 and spent 12 years serving Canada, the highest form of public service, in a place full of public servants. Like so many veterans I meet, shortly after hanging up my uniform, I tried to help my comrades and support veteran families the best I could, including here in Parliament. Therefore, I want to thank the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam for bringing the broader issue of our obligation to veterans to the floor of the House of Commons today. It is not spoken about enough in this place. It is also good to see that the member is passionate on public policy items beyond shark fin soup. This is a very substantive piece that I am glad he brought forward.

It is always important to discuss the needs of our veterans in the House. I have spoken many times about our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces and our veterans in the three years that I have been here as a member. All of us, as members, must work to make sure we are meeting the needs of our veterans, today and in the future. That is our duty.

Almost seven weeks ago, if I recall correctly, I was very proud to bring Bill C-58 to the House for consideration, which has a profound set of modernizations to the new veterans charter. This appears to be the first formal response from the New Democratic Party to this substantive bill. I am a little surprised it has taken it so long to comment substantively on this, but I am glad it is before us, nonetheless.

Our government inherited the new veterans charter, introduced and brought forward by the last Liberal government and then implemented by our government since 2006. Like any substantive change to the delivery of benefits and programs, it needed updating and there needed to be some gaps fixed. In 2011, our government proceeded to fix one of the larger gaps by creating the permanent impairment allowance supplement to support, in an additional capacity, the most seriously injured; and Bill C-58, the support for veterans and their families act, recognizes that there were also a number of key measures that needed to be addressed.

While all members of the House at that time, in 2005, voted for the new veterans charter—it is a very good approach to wellness, transition, and support for veterans and their families—it did emerge that there were critical gaps noted by several groups, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and others, as well as Ombudsman Guy Parent. Bill C-58 is meant to address those gaps.

However, there is a lot of work that remains to be done and some gaps that need to be filled, as identified by the Veterans Ombudsman and many other veterans groups, as well as the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Many people weighed in on some of the gaps that had arisen and been recognized in the new veterans charter. Therefore, Bill C-58 is our attempt to get the balance right. I publicly thanked the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. As my friend from Guelph recently said, it is rare for an all-party committee of Parliament to agree on some recommendations. I want to thank it for that. It was a brief glimmer of taking the politics out of this file, of which I think we need to do more. I am hoping that, over the course of this debate today, we can go back to that brief glimmer moment and try to address substantively what is in Bill C-58 beyond just the motion about a covenant that the member brought today.

I am going to go through the substantive additions to getting the new veterans charter correct.

First, the most critical item the ombudsman, Guy Parent, identified, not impacting veterans now but was a real issue for the future, was post-65 income for moderately to severely injured service members. About 1,200 members, men and women, are released each year from the Canadian Armed Forces because of a medical issue.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the efforts of my colleague for his work with veterans not only in his community but across the country.

The member touched on a recent announcement by the government to put Bill C-58 into the budget implementation act. I wonder if he could comment on whether he feels that veterans think this is going far enough, that this is what veterans are looking for, and that this is an appropriate reaction to, for instance, the call to agree that there is a social covenant that exists.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Guelph for his question and comments. He is one of the newest members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I have to say that he got into the swing of things quickly. It did not take him long to get up to speed on veterans' issues.

His comments on the government's half-measures are right on the money. After the government proposed its measures, many people said that they were just half-measures. They were announced in Bill C-58, which will die on the order paper because all of those measures were subsumed in the budget implementation legislation. We will be opposing that because it includes income splitting and many measures that we find utterly indecent.

I can already hear the government MPs saying that we opposed their measures, but those measures include lump sums that will help just a tiny fraction of veterans. They will not help enough people. For family caregivers, the government announced $7,000, which is not very much. Those are the only measures—

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for moving this motion in the House and giving us an opportunity to talk about veterans and the fate the government has in store for them.

That fate is not always an enviable one . As several reports over a period of more than a decade have consistently shown, the new veterans charter contains elements that are unjust. The House adopted the new charter in 2006, but it is very flawed.

Even at that time in the House, we were talking about how the charter had to be adopted so that the government could look after modern veterans properly. The pension system was designed mainly to help veterans of long-ago wars. When the House adopted the new charter, we said that it had to be a living document that would evolve. At the time, we already knew it had some problems and would have to be improved as problems arose.

Unfortunately, the government did not do a very good job because only one measure has been adopted in the House since. The new Minister of Veterans Affairs announced a few measures recently, but they are essentially half measures that were introduced in Bill C-58. I will come back to that a little later.

Two or three years ago, when the House was doing nothing to improve this new charter, veterans in British Columbia had to go to court in order to defend their rights, as other groups have had to do as well. They had to turn to the courts to show Canadians that when soldiers are injured while serving Canada, Canada does not do enough to take care of them. It is scandalous.

In a case backed by Equitas Society, they went to court because the veterans said that the pension system used to be more generous and took better care of injured veterans. They used reports to clearly illustrate that when veterans are injured, they get lump sums and pensions that are not big enough. What is more, if a soldier is injured in combat and does not have a pension, at age 65 he or she ends up with nothing. A number of troubling things like that have come up over the years. Equitas Society ended up going to court to call on the government to take better care of veterans and give them better compensation.

To block this class action suit, the government's lawyers had the audacity to tell the court that the government had no moral, sacred, fiduciary or legal obligation to take care of veterans. That was nonsense. This is the fist time since World War I and the days of Sir Robert Borden that anyone has dared to say that the government has no obligation to take care of our injured veterans. Obviously our veterans were outraged.

Two years ago, when the minister and the government were asked repeatedly to refute the arguments of the lawyers in charge of this case, there was radio silence. The minister let the case move forward with that argument, which raised the ire of a number of opposition members and, obviously, of the veterans themselves, because it makes no sense. No government is so indecent that it would deny its sacred obligation to look after veterans.

When soldiers undertake to serve Canada, they also agree to put the nation's interests before their own. They agree to risk their lives. They agree to go into battle without the certainty that the country and Canadians will look after them and their families. That is completely absurd. We strongly condemn this situation, and that is why my colleague moved this motion.

Instead of fighting it out in the courts and opposing this class action suit, the government should have made appropriate improvements to the new veterans charter and at least responded to all the recommendations made by the committee nearly one year ago. These recommendations are not new as they have been raised many times before.

The new minister is only announcing half measures. One of the committee's recommendations was to include the sacred, moral, fiduciary and legal obligation to properly care for veterans. This was ignored by the government, which did not agree to this recommendation even though it said it would accept it.

Recently, my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore asked the minister several times whether the government recognized this obligation. Once again, there was nothing but radio silence. The government refuses to recognize the sacred obligation to properly care for veterans. It is mind-boggling that the government continues to behave this way. We had to move this motion today to force the government to commit to fulfilling this moral obligation. I would like to once again thank my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for moving this important motion because it will allow us to see where the government stands on this issue. Will it once again simply pay lip service to this issue and attack the opposition?

Because of the many questions we have asked in the House, the government accused us of voting against the $5 billion it claimed to have invested since taking office. The Conservatives said it again not so long ago before they were caught red-handed. They did not invest $5 billion, since over $1 billion was returned to the public treasury. What is more, they are firing nearly one-quarter of the front-line staff who take care of our veterans, they are closing regional offices, and they are not consistently using the whole budget even though, as I mentioned, our veterans are not receiving sufficient compensation for injuries. Veterans receive less compensation than other people working in the public and private sectors. It is an ongoing battle for many of them to have their rights recognized, and now they have to deal with a shortage of staff.

The minister acknowledges that the budgets were cut too much in recent years, since the case managers were overburdened and the government is now having to backtrack and hire 100 new people to process veterans' files. There was a ratio of 40 veterans to one case manager, which was far too high. These case managers were not able to provide proper assistance to the veterans, follow up and fill out paperwork. There is often a large number of forms to fill out. The paperwork is never-ending, even if the veteran is an amputee, as we recently saw. An amputee was asked the following year to confirm that he was still an amputee. Veterans are swamped with forms to fill out, and the unspoken objective is to discourage veterans so they will stop filling them out. That makes no sense, when there are not enough case managers to pick up the slack.

The government needs to stop playing politics and stop accusing the opposition of playing politics when the government is the one doing it. The government must support this motion to improve the new veterans charter. We can put an end to the Equitas case by supporting our veterans and giving them appropriate compensation. That is what the government needs to do in this case.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the member from the Conservative Party would pose the question to the member from the NDP about the support for veterans and their families act. I want to tell the House how cunning the Conservatives are.

They talk about this lump sum payment increasing for members of the armed forces so that everyone across Canada thinks that this is a wonderful thing, but in section 44, they clearly define who it would be available to. It would be available to someone who suffers an immediate and severe impairment from a sudden and single incident. That means that people suffering from PTSD, which manifests itself months or years afterward, would not be entitled to this lump sum payment under this new legislation.

I wonder if the member, who gave us such an informed speech, might comment. Does he have any concerns about that?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, a standalone covenant of moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people and the government to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, which the government is obligated to fulfil.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

I am pleased to rise in the House to address today's NDP motion calling on the government to formally recognize the existence of a stand-alone covenant of moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation between the Canadian people and the Government of Canada to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured or disabled or have died as a result of military service and to their dependants.

Canada's New Democrats recognize this social covenant as the foundation of a respectful relationship between our government and our veterans. When the Conservatives deny this sacred obligation, they undermine the relationship with those who have fought for all of us. We call on all parliamentarians to stand up for veterans by supporting this motion.

To begin, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for the tremendous work he has done, and continues to do, on behalf of Canada's veterans and their families. His tireless efforts championing the needs of our brave men and women are unrivalled and deserve the recognition of all members of the House.

Our country has a long history of standing up for the rights and freedoms that Canadians hold dear. The men and women who join the Canadian Armed Forces know they may be called upon to risk their lives on behalf of Canada to uphold peace, security or human rights here at home and around the world. For those who answer the call, we honour their service and are grateful for their personal sacrifices, including those sacrifices made by their families.

The social covenant with veterans was first openly recognized in our country by Prime Minister Robert Borden in 1917. He said:

The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.

This historic covenant acknowledges that our nation and its government and citizens will support our men and women in their missions, honour their service and look after them and their families when they are injured, they are disabled or they die in the service of our country.

New Democrats recognize the covenant between the Canadian people and the government to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service and to their dependants, which in turn the government is obligated to fulfill. Yet rather than recognizing the covenant, the Conservative government continues to do damage control rather than live up to its obligation to veterans. It has made piecemeal funding announcements that only apply to a limited number of permanently injured veterans while so many more remain unserved.

While all parties voted for the new veterans charter in 2005, the Conservatives have implemented it in a way that denies essential pension and support services that veterans deserve.

In response, the veteran's group Equitas is suing the government, claiming this change in benefits violates the covenant that exists between the government and veterans. Shockingly, the government's own lawyers claim no such covenant exists despite modern legislative and constitutional legal precedent otherwise.

Let me quote directly from Equitas' statement of claim against the government, as I believe it lays out the foundation for why formal recognition of this sacred covenant is so important. It says:

When members of the Canadian Forces put on the uniform of their country they make an extraordinary personal commitment to place the welfare of others ahead of their personal interests, to serve Canada before self and to put themselves at risk, as required, in the interests of the nation. A veteran, whether regular or reserve, active or retired, is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank cheque made payable to “the Government of Canada,” for an amount of “up to and including their life.”

Military experts and veterans' advocates agree with New Democrats that the government must honour its moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation to Canada's veterans and their families.

For instance, the Royal Canadian Legion, representing more than 300,000 members, “...firmly believes this country has a solemn obligation owed to our military members” and states that:

...the Veterans Bill of Rights must be included in the New Veterans Charter and in the Pension Act, and that a modified version of the section 2 of the Pension Act be incorporated into the New Veterans Charter, and read as follows:

The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized solemn obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.

Further, when asked at the veterans affairs committee whether she believes the government has an obligation to honour this sacred social covenant, Dr. Stéphanie Bélanger, of the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, testified:

There is a social covenant and this is what started the research institute. ... There is lots of evidence of that social covenant existing in every country where the government will task people with a clause of unlimited liability, and because of this clause there is an obligation to serve back.

Tragically, in spite of the compelling case made by veterans' advocates, after nine years of Conservative government, too many veterans and their families still cannot access adequate health care, pensions, and vital supports.

In Veterans Affairs budgets, $1.13 billion has been returned to the federal treasury since 2006—over $1 billion. That is shocking. This money should have gone toward improved benefits and services for veterans and their families. Veterans and their families are dealing with the closure of nine front-line Veterans Affairs offices and a reduction of more than 900 jobs from Veterans Affairs since 2009, amounting to 23% of the department's workforce. That is unacceptable.

Canadian Forces veterans and their families deserve our deepest gratitude and deserve to be taken care of. Injured and disabled veterans should not have to fight the government in court for the compensation and care they rightly deserve. Canadians expect parliamentarians to ensure that our veterans and their families are well cared for from the moment they sign up to the moment they pay the ultimate sacrifice. That care includes a dignified funeral and burial.

If the Conservatives are serious about improving veterans' care, they will stop fighting veterans in court and recognize this historic social covenant to provide comprehensive and compassionate care for the brave men and women who have served on our behalf. They would also not have hastily included the entirety of Bill C-58 in their latest budget implementation act in a cynical move to force the opposition to vote against legislation it would support if it were presented as a stand-alone bill. As well, we would have attempted to improve it on behalf of veterans and their families.

This move underscores the political games the Conservatives are playing with veterans' issues, and it is exactly why today's motion is so important.

It is Canada's New Democrats who have led the way on proposals to improve the programs and services available for veterans and their families. An NDP government would end service pension clawbacks. We would reopen shuttered Veterans Affairs offices. We would widen access to quality home care, long-term care, and mental health care services.

Today we repeat the call for the government to repair our country's relationship with our veterans to one that is based on respect, rather than neglect, by supporting our motion to recognize this sacred social covenant and taking immediate action to enshrine it.

Veterans Affairs

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those benefits cut them from a $60,000 pension to a $27,000 pension, and back to $42,000. Why do they not get their full $60,000 pension?

Veterans suffering from latent long-term symptoms of PTSD are also excluded from VAC's new injury award under Bill C-58. Even the Veterans Ombudsman acknowledges it does not go nearly far enough in supporting injured veterans as it will affect only a handful of former service members each year, and none with PTSD.

Why are the Conservatives so stubbornly refusing to present a plan that will honour our sacred obligation to veterans and all their families?

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very transparent question. In fact, we have been doing that since Robert Borden's speech in 1917, we have continued to do that until today, and we will continue to do that tomorrow, regardless of where it is written or not written. That is an obligation the government has. Every government of every stripe has tried to fulfill that. As I said, there is always work to do. It will always be a work in progress.

In fact, the wording in Bill C-58, and I am sure my hon. colleague has read Bill C-58, addresses that and formalizes it, if it makes people more comfortable that it formalizes in language what has in fact been happening for decades and will continue to happen.

[Guy Parent]

Certainly to us it met the intent of one of our recommendations, which we considered one of the most important ones in the new veterans charter improvements and the recommendations from the committee. I think what's important is that it also supports the theme that we have in the office that a veteran is a veteran is a veteran. Wherever you get injured and whatever your status is at the time, it is not important. If you suffer an injury, whether it's physical or psychological, because of your service, then the government is responsible to treat you at the same level. We welcome that.

It's very early in the stages now to comment on the fairness of those programs because people are just now starting to access these new benefits. The one that you were talking about is one of the ones that was introduced by regulation and not legislation, which is good and certainly easier and faster than the other way. I certainly encourage the committee, whenever you look at Bill C-58, to put it through as quickly as possible.

Veterans

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, our budget yesterday, like Bill C-58 before the House, shows our tremendous obligation to our veterans and their families. That budget documents our spending on the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit and the family caregiver relief benefit, addressing our most seriously injured and the stress and strain of those injuries on the family.

The time is now for less rhetoric by that member and to get behind not only Bill C-58 but this budget.

Support for Veterans and Their Families Act

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

Mr. Speaker, I table this bill, the purpose of which is to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and the Government of Canada to our veterans and their families.

It is an honour for me to introduce this bill to provide support for veterans and their families.

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