Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2006

Language used in Oral Question

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was merely referring to how democracy worked in Russia. In Stalin's day in communist Russia, people who did not agree simply disappeared. It became known as a purge in the historic context.

A little over a week ago, one of the appointed directors to the Canadian Wheat Board by the name of Ross Keith wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture disagreeing with his position on the Canadian Wheat Board. What happened last weekend? He basically disappeared. He was fired from the job and replaced by an anti-Wheat Board activist just yesterday, so in effect it is a purge.

If the governing party is upset with the word Stalinist, then I will withdraw that word, but the fact of the matter is that it is a purge and that is what it was.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the hon. member for Malpeque withdrawing his references to that situation.

I wish to inform the House that government orders will be extended by 24 minutes because of the ministerial statement today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Canadian Forces

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

I rise today to express my strong support for the motion introduced by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. I stand here proudly in support of our veterans and of course our active Canadian Forces. As members of the House will know, the member has a longstanding record of speaking out for veterans. I commend him for his hard work and his dedication to finding solutions for their problems.

Earlier in the House we heard very eloquent speeches in support of our veterans. When I was considering the topic today and how I would begin my remarks, I was reminded of my family. I had an uncle who at 16 years of age served in World War I. I had three uncles who served in the second world war. One was killed two days after D-Day. The other two went on to careers outside of the military but both died young and it was pretty clear that it was as a result of their service to their country.

The motion states in part: “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately take the following steps to assist members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families...”. As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, I strongly support this motion, but having said that, I want to say for the record that the word “assist” really does not express how I believe our national government should be responding to the needs of veterans. First and foremost they need our support, but rather than critiquing wording I will go directly to what I believe is needed.

As the motion states, what is needed is:

--an amendment to Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act so that second spouses of CF members and veterans have access to pension rights upon the death of the Canadian Forces member or veteran;....

In one part we hear it as a right. In another place I have heard it expressed as this clause being called the gold diggers clause. How offensive. I must say such a clause hearkens back to a far and distant time, a time when teachers were required to get permission from their school boards in order to marry. It is beyond being discriminatory. It is simply offensive. It should have been removed from the act many years ago.

I can almost hear the question: how much will this cost? I agree it is not an unreasonable question on most occasions, but with the government sitting on a surplus of $13 billion surely it can spare the estimated $183 million this program would cost.

Next in the motion is this clause:

--extend the veterans independence program (VIP) to all widows of all veterans, regardless of the time of death of the veteran and regardless of whether the veteran was in receipt of VIP services prior to his or her death;.....

I believe most members present would find it reasonable to provide proper home care for veterans as they age. I cannot imagine someone not supporting that.

Canadian veterans have always been a proud lot. As an example, in our gallery today we saw the pride as those veterans rose before us. As a result, however, many veterans did not know about the veterans independence program or simply chose not to apply.

An example I would use is a person I know well, a Hamilton resident, Art Hebert. Art is a veteran of the second world war. He served proudly in the Canadian navy. He served in the engine room of ships during that war. He was injured when his ship was torpedoed and sunk. Let us imagine for a moment what it must have been like getting out of that engine room and into the ocean after being torpedoed. Art's leg injury was with him for the remainder of his non-military career.

It was not until the mid-1990s that Art decided to seek assistance from the Government of Canada. No one had ever contacted Art regarding his injury or his eligibility for pension. His persistence in getting on with life after the war is but one of many examples of the courage of veterans and their determination not to be a burden to Canada. If anyone ever deserved real VIP treatment, our veterans did and do.

We know what the issues are that many veterans face during their latter years, and without access to the VIP, for whatever reason, it is more often than not their spouses who provide that home care. Today we have a chance to offer care to those spouses who cared for our nation's heroes. Veterans' spouses deserve nothing less.

The next point in the motion is the following:

--increase the Survivor's Pension Amount upon death of Canadian Forces retirees to 66% from the current amount of 50%;....

In times of great national need, veterans and their families gave Canada their all. They offered their very lives for our freedoms. I believe it is incumbent upon the government to reciprocate by giving veterans and their families fair and equitable treatment, the same treatment that public and private plans offer. Moreover, spouses of Canadian Forces personnel deserve fair access to spousal benefits.

Next, the motion states that we should:

--eliminate the unfair reduction of Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) long term disability benefits from medically released members of the Canadian Forces; and

-eliminate the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled CF members.

In these very difficult times, with Canadian Forces every day facing the real threat of life-changing wounds and injuries in Afghanistan, it is very important to weigh carefully what is being asked for in items 4 and 5 of the motion.

Recommendations were made in 2003 to address the issue immediately, but the previous Liberal government failed to take action. Mr. Côté, the ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, called for the previous government to address the issue in his 2003 report entitled, “Unfair Deductions from SISIP Payments to Former CF Members”.

I ask the government, and in particular the Minister of National Defence, why has this government not acted? Why has it not moved to take better care of injured and disabled Canadian Forces members?

As members of the House heard in question period today, the ombudsman released a second report just yesterday. In that report regarding the treatment of 1 Combat Engineer Regiment Kuwait veterans, Mr. Côté spoke of the courage and dedication to duty of these veterans. That is what we expect of our forces and what we get from our veterans of all the wars and conflicts. The ombudsman pointed to the fact that they, like most veterans, served in area where, at the time of engagement, service personnel were not told and were not aware of the harmful substances to which they were being exposed during their deployment.

Prior to being elected to the House, I was a labour activist. In that capacity, I fought alongside injured workers from the private sector and other activists to achieve what we called the right to know legislation, which was about the right to know what hazards one faces in the workplace. In addition to the right to know, there was also the right to refuse unsafe work in the private sector.

Obviously in military deployments service personnel often are compelled by circumstance to continue their work in spite of the obvious and often not so obvious environmental risks. Their government owes them more, because it put them in harm's way in many more ways than just fighting the visible enemy. We place many service personnel at risk from unknown and undocumented environmental risks. On Mr. Côté's report, I was pleased to hear today that the Minister of National Defence said he will be acting on the nine recommendations. As we are learning about the environmental hazards throughout regular workplaces, we see the damage of these particular ones.

In conclusion, there are a number of times in this House when we can do the right thing. In this particular case, the right thing could never be more obvious. The right thing is to support the motion. I call on all members of the House to do the one thing that we all claim to do, which is to stand up for our veterans, and pass the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Hamilton area for his speech and how he, like all of us in the House, can actually relate this motion to individual concerns within our own families.

One thing I would like the hon. member to touch on, and he probably knows this quite well, is that when soldiers come back injured or they do not come back at all, the family is left behind. Because of that, these families face a lot of economic hardships. Their children grow up in that environment missing a lot of opportunities that other kids in their neighbourhood would have had because their father or mother served proudly and courageously for their country, and either became mentally or physically disabled or they did not come back at all and paid the ultimate sacrifice.

The reason the NDP put forward this motion is to assist those people now in the later years of their life and with other concerns pertaining to their disabilities, so that we can add respect and dignity to their lives. I would like him to comment on that, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was born two years after the end of the second world war and I can remember in 1954-55 when the veterans of Korea returned home. They would sit in our local barbershop with veterans from the first world war and the second world war. As a very, very young person, I was there listening intently. I did not hear stories of glory or of how much one had done. I heard repeatedly what Canada had done for the good of the world. In all of those cases, it was people who had clearly put the interests of their country ahead of the interests of themselves and their families.

Occasionally, in those barbershop days, there would be the son of someone who did not come home. I could see the caring from the veterans who would address those people and ask what they needed or what they could do to support them. The need was clearly there. Over a period of time, the Government of Canada has done better than what it was doing at that time. It touches one deeply to see the faces and remember those faces of people who gave so much and of those who lost so much.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, how does my colleague answer the spouse who says that she was married to a veteran who came back from war but because the law was passed in 1981, they are not covered by or qualify for, for example, the VIP?

How do we answer that spouse on the discrimination made by the Government of Canada? How do we explain that? How does the member explain that to his constituents who say they are Canadian but are treated differently? How does he explain that on November 11 when all members of Parliament are running around the country telling veterans that we support them? How could the member explain that to the spouse?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question has a terrible connotation about how that person must feel inside who has been neglected by the government. In the operation of my community office, whenever constituents come to our office, we try to find the best way to work with them.

I would turn to that person and reference the motion that is before us today as an example of how we are moving forward on the issue. I believe a majority of members in the House will be supporting this motion. As I have said before, it is time to stand up because it is the right thing to do. I would explain to my constituent that I have faith in this House. I have faith in the fact that people have a genuine respect for veterans and that they will do the right thing.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House to discuss the New Democratic Party motion, moved by my colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

It is with some emotion that we discuss the important subject of our veterans, especially as we approach Remembrance Day, November 11. We must remember what those soldiers did for us in order to defend our freedom; a freedom that many countries would like to have today.

At this moment, many countries are at war. I am certain that those people would like to be living in peace. Whether it was the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war or the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina—the list is long—Canadian men and women have risked their lives to give us our freedom of speech and the right to travel freely.

Personally, I have visited countries where the simple fact of walking down the street called for an escort carrying a machine-gun to provide protection. Visitors from other parliaments come here and do not need to be protected by the army. Our veterans have given us a land of freedom.

The motion seeks to remove the “gold digger clause” to allow veterans and their second spouses to have access to pension rights upon the veteran's death. What is the “gold digger clause”? It concerns pension benefits that are not granted to men or women who marry a retired member of the Canadian forces after the latter has reached age 60. The clause is outdated and discriminatory. In particular, this provision unfairly penalizes older women who constitute the majority of surviving spouses.

Under any insurance plan, it is possible to bequeath the proceeds of an insurance policy to one’s partner or spouse. In the event of death, our pension can be granted to them.

The Government of Canada, and especially a Conservative government, truly believes in wars, and believes that we should send our soldiers to war. According to the government, our military should be present, as it is now in Afghanistan. The NDP does not agree with our soldiers' mission. The government claims that it can not give this money because of the cost that it represents. There we have the government’s answer. Its position is represented by a dollar sign.

For a soldier, man or woman, who has gone to war, what does it mean to put their life in danger for their country? The government says that it costs too much, it is too expensive. We cannot help them. They will not be given permission to lead a decent life. A person who marries a veteran after the age of 60 will not receive a pension on the veteran’s death.

This is totally discriminatory. The Veterans Independence Program should be offered to all widows and widowers of veterans, regardless of the time of the veteran's death and regardless of whether the veteran received VIP services before they died. All widows, if they have an identified need, should be eligible for the program. The act was passed in 1981 and should be retroactive for everyone.

In the past I used to negotiate collective agreements for workers. So it is as though, for a collective agreement, I had negotiated a pension fund retroactive to 1985. It is as though I said to the people who began in the Brunswick mine in 1966 that it was too bad for them, because they were not with us when we negotiated all the retroactive clauses.

This is discrimination. It is not a way to solve problems.

That is why I asked my colleague earlier what he would say to a spouse who told him that her neighbour was entitled to this program because she was in the system in 1982 and the act was passed in 1981, whereas she herself was not entitled to it because it was in 1979. Still, her husband had been in World War II and the Korean War. Why is she not entitled to compensation, when her husband took part in the same war as her neighbour’s husband?

This is discrimination toward a citizen. This government, if we recall, was the House champion in the battle over hepatitis C. It accused the Liberal government of not compensating everyone, since it excluded a number of years. This same government that, when in opposition, had good arguments about hepatitis C, argued that everyone should be entitled to compensation. How can we explain today that the VIP will not be available to all spouses, not even to those from before 1981? How can we explain to people that their husband or their wife will be excluded, when they participated in the same war and they were in the same trenches?

I was moved, in 2004, when I had the chance to go to France and stop at Vimy, where I saw millions of crosses on the ground, in memory of the soldiers who were killed in World War I to give us freedom. I was moved to see that, because I could see what these people had done.

After going there, a person cannot come back to Canada without remembering. This is what we are talking about when we say, on November 11, we will remember.

When people see these cemeteries, they think of the soldiers who never had a chance to come home. Even those who returned from the war bear the scars. They have been psychologically affected. They live with their spouse and live with that. They have certainly explained what happened in the war, all the emotions they felt and the psychological upsets. When these people return, they are told that their spouses cannot have the money because the government passed legislation in 1981 that treats them differently from the others. This is contrary to the hepatitis C policies that the Conservatives advocated when they were in the opposition.

If I am not mistaken, the Conservative Party said that all those who had received contaminated blood should be treated equally. That is not what happened then, and the same situation is repeating itself now. We want the pension that survivors receive upon the death of a person who retired from the armed forces increased from 50% to 66%.

Who wants to live on 50% or even 66%? It should be more, but virtually any insurance that is bought normally provides one-third of the salary. People get one-third of the benefit money. When the Conservative government rises in the House to say that we are sending out our soldiers and the NDP should support them and accuses us of not supporting them, we reply that it is not our soldiers we do not support but the mission the Conservative government has sent them on. That is what we do not support.

If the Conservatives really do support our soldiers, they should support our veterans and their spouses. Those are the people we should support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the time you have given me. It was an honour and a privilege to speak today on the eve of Veterans' Week, which will be held from November 5 to 11, and we certainly hope that the government will support it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks and I want to take him to task for something he said early on. He said, “the Conservatives believe in war”. What a ridiculous statement. We do not believe in war. I do not believe in war. I spent 30 years prepared to fight a war because I hate war.

What we believe in is protecting people who cannot protect themselves. What we believe in is standing up against tyranny. What we believe in is protecting women and children. What we believe in is putting down dictators.

We do not hate war. We hate the people who make war on those who cannot defend themselves.

This member and this party, and I think every member in the House, will agree, as every freedom loving person in the world who has the courage to stand up to it will agree, we do not hate war.

I will quote Mark Twain in 1912 when he was considering running for the presidency of the United States. He said, “It's a fine thing to defend one's own freedom. It's a damn sight finer thing to defend somebody else's”.

I would simply ask my hon. friend to reconsider that ridiculous comment.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is saying that his government does not hate war, then it should bring back our soldiers.

The Conservatives talk about people's freedom and says that we are in Afghanistan to give rights and freedoms to women. If that is true why have they cut the funding to Status of Women Canada? Where is that freedom?

Where was the government at the big AIDS convention in Toronto? Forty million people around the world are dying of AIDS and the Conservative government refused to be in Toronto. On Friday the government said that it would not give money because it could be political. Where is the freedom of people? What chance do people have of living and being proud of themselves?

The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for making those ridiculous statements that were just made.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member becomes quite animated and that makes us all pay attention, which is good. He certainly expresses his point of view without ambiguity. I think that would generally be true.

The problem I have, as my colleague mentioned, is that he sometimes distances himself from the facts. I find it repulsive when he implies that we somehow love war. We do not. I do not know how to express it without becoming really animated myself, but war is very distasteful. We are defenders of peace.

However, every once in a while, whether it is in our own country or on the international scene, some very bad people stand up and do things that are very unjust to innocent people. I am one who would not hurt a flea but if someone was being attacked by someone else, I would be ready to put my body between them.

I do not know why that member wants to characterize us in that way.

The member made another statement saying that somehow we do not care about people who are dying of AIDS. How false. We care deeply and compassionately, which is why we are participants, as the Canadian government, in funding research and in distributing drugs to other countries where people are dying of AIDS.

For the member to say that because we were not represented at the conference we are not fighting AIDS is also false. Two of our ministers were at that conference but the media chose to ignore them. Our Minister of Health was there. I do not know who the other minister was but two ministers were there.

I wish the member would be totally truthful before he so blatantly and falsely attacks us.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's statement but the statement I made, which is not false, is that the Prime Minister of our country was not in Toronto for the AIDS convention. That is what I said and I stand by that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

I would like to thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for introducing the motion. The debate could not come at a more appropriate time.

In the next week, Canadians will remember and pay tribute to those who risked their lives and too often paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and democracy. The very least we can do in the House is have an open, honest debate about the most important issues facing our veterans.

Like all things, context is important to understand to grasp the issue at hand. For me and thousands of veterans in Canada, that context began in 1995. In that year, the then minister of finance and former prime minister introduced the most heavy-handed budget in Canadian history. No one was spared. Cuts were made to health care, to post-secondary education, to infrastructure support and the list goes on. However, the most important and most tragic cuts were the ones he made to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Because of the cuts he made, thousands of allied war veterans were shut out from the benefits they should have rightly received. They settled in Canada after the war, paid taxes in Canada and helped build our great country, and this was the thanks they got from the Liberal government.

Because of the cuts he made, veterans had to pay to take a taxi to the doctor because of a $5 co-pay. Not only was that unfair, it directly targeted some of the most vulnerable in our society. While the Liberal Party was entrusted by Canadians to protect and respect the legacy of our veterans, all it could do was cut benefits and charge them for taxi rides.

Eleven more years of Liberal rule and nothing changed. Veterans found it harder to qualify for benefits. It took some veterans years of battling with the government to get even the smallest pension. These veterans again found themselves playing the role of brave soldier, only this time they were fighting battles with the Liberal government.

Then, the Liberal government, with the member for LaSalle—Émard in tow, asked itself how it could help more of its Liberal friends while ignoring what was best for Canadian veterans. The answer to that was the Veterans Review and Appeals Board.

After opening this new patronage machine, the former prime minister could not get his Liberal pals in place fast enough. I will give some examples of the appointments the former prime minister made. His former executive assistant, Denise Tremblay, received a five year term; former Liberal MP, Charlie Power, won the lottery with a seven year term; while fellow Liberal MP, Ian Murray, got himself a five year appointment. The other thing members should note is that no fewer than nine of the members on the board when we took government had either sat as a Liberal in Parliament, in a provincial legislature, had been an assistant to a Liberal minister or had worked for a Liberal member of Parliament. To put that in context, that was almost 50% of the members of the board in February 2006.

A few years down the road, in 2003, former Prime Minister Chrétien threatened 23,000 veterans' widows by saying that he would take away their veterans independence program benefits. This shameful act was met with outrage from the widows and their families. The former prime minister was taken to task by his caucus, not out of concern for the widows, but because they were afraid of losing their jobs.

The minister of the day defended the exclusion of the widows by saying that he could not include them because the prime minister would not give him any more money. How cold and shallow is that? These people sacrificed to give us the freedom we have today and the Liberals could only say “Sorry, we have no money”, despite the fact there were record surpluses at the time.

In any event, the member for LaSalle—Émard took over a sinking Liberal ship after forcing out the previous prime minister. What did that mean for veterans? Absolutely nothing. Not only did the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard do nothing for our veterans, but he did not even mention them in either the 2004 or 2006 Liberal Party election platforms. That is incredible. How could the Liberal Party drop the ball so badly that it refused to include veterans in its campaign propaganda?

Did the veterans not register on the government's polls? Were they not good focus groups? Perhaps the Liberal brain trust was too busy finding things to insult current members of the Canadian Forces with their ridiculous attack ads. We will probably never know.

One final point on the do nothing reign of the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, and this is more to the credit of the current Prime Minister than anyone else, is the new veterans charter which was passed in May 2005, literally by the express consent of the opposition parties.

The former Liberal prime minister from LaSalle—Émard had to be forced by the other three opposition leaders to agree to the legislation. Even then, it took this Prime Minister and this Minister of Veterans Affairs to sign it into law.

However, that was then and this is now. I can say, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that our government has more respect for veterans than was shown by the official opposition in its 13 years of government.

I am confident that Canada's new government will raise the bar when it comes to treating our veterans with respect and dignity. There were 13 years of neglect, cuts and disrespect shown to our veterans by the previous Liberal administration. Canada's new government endeavours to undo those past 13 years and treat Canadian veterans with the respect they deserve.

Our new government will not use the Veterans Review and Appeal Board as a golden handshake for former parliamentarians or their staff. Our new government will change the Liberal culture of “deny until they die”, to one of compassion and fairness. Our new government will continue to support the Department of Veterans Affairs with new resources and initiatives to better the lives of our veterans. Our new government will also ensure that each and every veteran is receiving everything he or she is entitled to under the law.

We have achieved much for veterans during our short time in government. We have begun to fill vacancies on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to serve veterans more quickly and we have added a national advertising campaign for board positions. We have put an additional $350 million into Veterans Affairs Canada to help new and traditional veterans and we have signed into law the new veterans charter, the biggest change in veterans' benefits in 60 years.

We ordered a review of all health services, including the veterans independence program.

We have done all that in a short period of time, and we still have a lot of time left to accomplish good things for veterans.

As for the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, I am supportive of his efforts with this motion but, as I noted earlier, there is a health care review currently underway and I am sure the minister will inform us of the results of that review in due course.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been witness to some pretty simplistic and rash statements in this House in the last half hour or so. We had a member from the NDP say that the Conservatives love war and we have had a member of the Conservatives say that the Liberals do not like veterans. I think we should inject a bit of moderation into our speeches.

My question for the hon. member relates to a facility that happens to be located in my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis, a facility of which I am very proud. I have visited this facility many times over the years and I will be visiting it again on Monday. The facility is the Ste. Anne's Hospital for veterans which is the last standing federally owned and operated veteran's hospital in the country.

One of the issues that is very important to people in my community, especially to the families of veterans, is whether the widows of veterans, the widows who did not serve in the armed forces, will be allowed to receive care in that hospital, either while their spouses are there or even though their spouses have passed on.

If, as the member says, his party has the interests of veterans so much at heart, will he, on his own behalf, push his government to allow the widows of veterans admittance to the Ste. Anne's Hospital for veterans?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for maybe toning down the rhetoric a little.

He obviously has a very serious issue in his constituency and any opportunity that the government has to take care of veterans and their widows should be examined and given every bit of due process. It is the veterans and their widows, the widows who stayed at home and supported the families while their spouses were off fighting on behalf of freedom and democracy for everybody in Canada and around the world, who should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to have the advantages of any of the pensionable benefits. I cannot speak on behalf of the government totally, but I can assure the hon. member that that is my personal feeling.

I wish he had spent as much time, when he had the opportunity as a member of the previous government, pushing for exactly what it is he is talking about today. He had that opportunity and if it did not get done he should seriously examine why his party could not get that done on his behalf.

I would like to talk about the numerous veterans in my riding who will be out in full force on November 11 at the various legions. I have about 15 legions across my riding and I will be glad to hear from them about the positive things that are coming from this government, with the new veterans charter and with the other health care initiatives that we are taking action on to ensure all veterans and their widows have an opportunity to get access to the services they need.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

On questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. She should know that there is about a minute and a half for both the question and the answer.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the member's speech by saying that in this time when we are all talking about supporting our troops, wherever they are, and obviously Afghanistan comes to mind, we are here today to say that we honour them long after they take off their uniforms.

We are here today to call for measures to show our true respect for our veterans and address some of the egregious inequalities and outstanding program deficiencies here and now. One of those of course is the right to stay in one's own home as long as one can, especially spouses of deceased veterans. I want the member to know that one constituent of mine, Marion Robertson, wrote to me and said:

On January 7, 1989 my husband of 30 years...passed away at the age of 70. Although at the time of my husband's death he did have reoccurring heart problems and a pacer, he was not in receipt of VIP services.

It has been 16 years since my husband's death and I require housekeeping and grounds maintenance services. I am the wife of a veteran who served in the Merchant Navy from 1943-1945. I believe that my husband served and I feel I am entitled to this benefit.

Does the member agree with that sentiment and will he support the motion?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to advise the hon. member that the clock has run out, but there will be a moment for him to reply.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are aspects of the motion that have merit and I know that the government is making progress in addressing those areas, such as the VIP. However, a number of points related to the Canadian Forces pension are inaccurate and what we need is a good, long study, and some clarity on these issues because not all parts of this motion are actually up to par.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to address the motion put forward by my hon. friend, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. My perspective is a bit different having served for 30 years, and I was honoured and proud to have done that. I have been treated extremely well during and since my service. I am honoured and proud to serve here.

The men and women of the Canadian Forces deserve our gratitude and respect both while serving and in retirement. I would like to address, though, the last section of the motion, most elements of which I can support except the last portion which urges the government to eliminate the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled CF members. It is an inaccurate statement. We need to be very clear about what government benefits are for our men and women in uniform.

If one reads the motion the way it is worded, one would think that the government is wilfully taking money away from our soldiers, taking money right out of their pockets. We all know that this government would never consider such an idea, nor would any reasonable government.

In fact, if we were to ask Canadians to look at the track record of the government in just the nine months since it has taken office, I am sure all Canadians would agree that this government is doing a lot for our military. I will cite some examples, starting with budget 2006.

Our government provided our forces with an additional $5.3 billion over five years, so that they can carry out their important role in Canada and abroad.

This government has also announced plans to purchase four major procurement items for our military: joint support ships, medium to heavy lift helicopters, strategic and tactical airlift, medium size logistic trucks, and there is more to come.

We have also taken additional measures—including sending armoured recovery vehicles, engineering vehicles and counter-mortar equipment, which includes a radar system to locate enemy weapons, in order for our troops to have what they need in Afghanistan to carry out their mission.

I think it is obvious that the government stands squarely behind our forces. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen contribute so much for our country and we cannot thank them enough for the daily sacrifices they make for their courage and dedication.

We owe it to them to ensure that they are well accommodated when it comes to retirement and beyond. We need to look after them. We are not, as the motion would suggest, deducting anything from them. This is simply false.

I would like to clarify for members of the House and for Canadians how we look after our dedicated men and women in the military through their pensions. Upon retirement from the military Canadian Forces members receive a full pension under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and then, once they reach 65, they receive a pension from two sources: the CFSA and Canada pension plan.

The pension benefits of the CFSA and CPP have been integrated and that happened in 1966, and I was there. This has been the case since the introduction of CPP of course 40 years ago. Payments to CFSA at that time were reduced by the amounts of the new CPP. I was an 18-year-old going through pilot training at the time.

How are these two plans joined together? They are linked by something called a bridge benefit. Once retired the former Canadian Forces members will receive a bridge benefit from the government until they reach age 65. This additional bridge benefit and CPP retirement pension that they will get when they are 65 are similar in amounts. There are exceptions to this if someone takes CPP early but those are the exceptions.

In my own case, retiring at 47, it meant that from age 47 to age 65 I was collecting a full Canadian Forces superannuation even though I have only paid for part of it. In effect, the pension amount the retirees receive is the same both before and after they reach 65.

We do this so that the income for our retired military is stable throughout the entire retirement period. We do this because we recognize that a military member can retire much earlier than 65. In my own case, 47. We do this because we care.

Let me give an example. Some of our military personnel joined the military as early as age 16, in my case 17. That means that by the age of 36 after 20 years of service to this country they are eligible to retire on a pension of 40%.

Our plan for them is to ensure they receive the same pension for the rest of their life or until they are 102 years old, if they live that long.

Our plan ensures that if they have a child to put through school or university, or an unforeseen expense, they can have a predictable level of income throughout their lives. In the great majority of cases, the total monthly pension income for a CF annuitant is similar in amount whether it be before turning 65 or after.

In some cases, if a retired soldier continues to make CPP contributions after leaving the military, the amount of his or her retirement pension would be even more than the amount of his or her bridge benefit. In other words, total pension income after age 65 will be higher than before reaching age 65. From time to time there is a situation when a member will see a reduction after age 65, and this is where there has been some confusion in the past.

We need to be clear to our veterans and Canadian Forces retirees why this can happen. As I mentioned, there will be a reduction in pension earnings after 65 when retirees have elected to receive early CPP benefits, which they are eligible to receive at age 60. This reduction in total pension income happens only because Canadian Forces members have chosen to take this route.

Our military pension plan does not, by any means, deduct anything from our Canadian Forces members that is rightfully theirs. They have paid into their pension plans and they will get their benefits from it. This is very different from what the motion before us would suggest. Canadians can be proud of the pension plan that we have for our military.

The CFSA is an excellent pension plan for our forces. In addition to the pension, or the bridge benefit, the CFSA also has generous early retirement provisions, benefits that are payable to survivors, and a full cost of living indexing feature. It is a program that is designed to provide generous benefits to which members have paid significant contributions and it compares favourably with some of the best pension plans this country has to offer.

I went through a lot of the things that we have heard about today, in the military. I even endured a year in Victoria, learning French from the hon. member for Victoria. It was not much of a hardship, and I hope it worked a little bit.

I do support several measures that are in this motion. I will personally fight to get the VIP benefit extended. I will fight to get the spousal benefits extended. I support and will fight for the concept of a veterans ombudsman.

However, and this is my own pension I am talking about, I cannot honestly support getting something for myself, or anybody else, that I have not paid for, and that is simply what we are talking about.

The emotional arguments are valid. I have been there. I have hundreds, at least, of friends who have been there. I understand it better than most. But it simply does not cut it. I cannot expect to get something that I have not paid for.

Many people I talk to, former chiefs of defence staff, former senior officers, down to junior officers, who sit down, put aside the emotion, and look at the cold hard facts have to agree. As much sacrifice the members of the military and the RCMP make, we cannot expect to get something that we just flat have not paid for. As I said, I was proud to serve and honoured to serve, and I was well compensated for that before and since.

It pains me to have to say that because I know I have friends watching who are saying, “Hawnski, what are you doing? You're deserting us”. I would love to get more money. I am sorry. I referred to myself as Hawnski, I should have said “Youski, you're deserting us”.

I would love to get more money, but I cannot, with a sense of honesty and integrity, stand here and say, “Please give me something that I haven't earned”, no matter what I have gone through. I just cannot do that. To many of my friends who are watching, I am sorry, but my sense of honesty and integrity will not allow that. It does pain me because I would love to have more money, as we all would.

I will say again, there are many things that I support in this motion, and I have the utmost respect for my hon. colleague, who is very active in veterans affairs and military affairs, as am I. There are many things that I will support, but the one aspect, the aspect of getting something that we have not paid for, that, I am sorry, I just cannot. I am taking money out of my own pocket to say that, but that is the right answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and for his over 30 years of service defending the interests of all Canadians throughout this country. I also thank him for his efforts in preserving and protecting the entire integrity of the Shearwater air base. For that I am extremely grateful.

My question is with regard to the annuity deductions which he says is not correct. If he firmly believes that, then is he saying that the Royal Canadian Legion representing 440,000 people, the Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada Association representing over 20,000 people, the Air Force Association of Canada representing thousands more, plus Lewis MacKenzie and many other people are simply blatantly wrong?

If the hon. member firmly believes this, then I ask him to support the motion and send it to a full standing committee. If he wants the clear facts, let us hear from those individuals and pension experts from across the country. The member should support the motion and get it to a committee where we can have a clear, open and honest debate once and for all on the deduction of the annuity.

I have received letter after letter that contradicts my hon. colleague. I would like to have further debate. That is why we included it in the motion, along with the other four aspects of our motion. We believe that they are valid, cost effective and they should be moved on and passed quickly.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of two of the three organizations the member mentioned. One of the problems here is that for a lot of people, including the vets, the legion and the Air Force Association, the situation becomes so muddy. There is so much misinformation and the mixing of emotional arguments. It is everyone's desire to do the right thing for veterans, but some of the simple facts have not been laid out in a pure unemotional way.

The simple fact is that in 1966 my contributions to my Canadian Forces superannuation went down by the amount that my Canada pension plan contributions kicked in. It has been that way ever since.

Would I like to get more? Sure. Is the country prepared to spend $20 billion, $40 billion? I do not know what the number is for sure. We have received numbers back from the Library of Parliament that are extraordinarily high.

It is not up to General MacKenzie or the other organizations that the member mentioned, all of whom I have tremendous respect for. I have friends in those organizations. It is up to the Government of Canada to do the right thing by the Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and so on. It is also up to us to make sure that we are doing it with the facts and honestly.

I would be happy to debate the issue further.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate. I would like to add a point and hear my colleague's comment.

I have a constituent who was a member of the armed forces and was part of the negotiating team when the pension was changed. His comments to me were very direct. He said that this is the worst kind of political manipulation that there could possibly be. He said that they negotiated for a better pension. They had a pension where members could receive it sooner, take an earlier pension at a lower benefit and therefore get more in the long run.

I would appreciate hearing the hon. member's answer on the political manipulation.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure which time my hon. colleague is talking about. Let me say that the pension that I paid into for 31 years for pension purposes I received at age 47, which I was very grateful for. It was a full pension, even though I had only paid for part of it. I am still collecting that pension. It allowed me to retire at age 47 and get on with other things, which I did, 12 years in the financial services business and then the first of what hopefully will be several years in this place.

I am not sure what political manipulation my hon. friend is talking about, but he and I will discuss it afterwards.