Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2006

Opposition Motion--Canadian Forces

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He is a very respected member of our Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and I thank him for the question.

Yes, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is studying the possibility of the installation of an ombudsman for veterans affairs. I want to thank the hon. member from Kamloops who raised this issue several years ago and has brought it very succinctly not only to the House but to the committee as well.

We believe, and I believe, that there is consent within the veterans affairs committee that an ombudsman for veterans affairs is necessary. An ombudsman for veterans affairs would play a very important role. We believe that the ombudsman for veterans affairs should report to Parliament. That way we will have a very concise and succinct report that we can all deal with at the same time.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this motion before the House today. Since I became a member of Parliament we have discussed all manner of issues from the profound to the tawdry in this House, but this is the first time I can remember that we will spend a day dealing with issues concerning veterans.

As members of Parliament we owe our veterans, past and present, a great obligation. Yet, it seems that the glaciers are moving quicker than we are in terms of dealing with their needs and the needs of widows, and in dealing with the clawbacks to their pensions and the taxing of their disability payments.

I have question for the member. What do we need to do in the House of Commons to show a clear commitment to our veterans right across this country? What are the steps that need to be taken?

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

Mr. Speaker, we chose one particular item and that was survivor benefits. Right now a survivor only gets 50% of the veteran's pension. In some cases these survivors are forced into poverty. That is unacceptable. The Royal Canadian Legion indicated that the amount of the benefit should be at least two-thirds of the pension amount, or 66%, and we believe that as well so their families do not slip into poverty.

This seems rather ironic. We ask our veterans to do so much for us. We ask their spouses and families to look after them. Yet, when those same veterans pass on, we start taking money away from their families and they slip into poverty. Sometimes they have to rely on other services for support. That is unacceptable.

We could have included at least 30 or 40 other issues dealing with veterans in this particular motion. We chose these five because we believe they are important and affordable. We believe that the government, with the cooperation of the other political parties, will move on this agenda very quickly. We should be able to see many of these items in the next upcoming budget.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my first duty in responding to the hon. member is to thank him because we share a passion for veterans. The Government of Canada deeply appreciates the opportunity to share information about the important work that is being done on behalf of Canada's veterans and serving members.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

Our history books proudly recount the generations of brave men and women who have risked life and limb, both at home and abroad, to safeguard freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Today, as the world continues to look to Canada for leadership and courage against oppression, we turn to our Canadian Forces, the best-trained soldiers in the world, and rely on their discipline and expertise to carry on Canada's proud military tradition.

In a very real and powerful sense, each and every member of this House owes veterans a debt of gratitude. For without their sacrifices and achievements, would we have the right to come together today to debate issues that hold importance to all Canadians?

In raising this motion for discussion, I cannot help but think that a great tribute has been made to the remarkable success of the veterans independence program.

VIP, as it is commonly known, is one of the most innovative and popular programs offered by Veterans Affairs Canada. By the way, Canada is the only country in the world that has a veterans independence program. We are very proud of this program.

As many will know, the goal of VIP is to help veterans remain healthy and independent in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. This is a worthy and noble goal.

Like most members of this House, I have the privilege of representing many veterans who value their independence. Many have lived in their communities most of their lives. They have friends who visit them, maybe family close by, and precious memories to share. They expect and deserve a high quality of life in their later years. VIP helps make this possible.

Since being introduced in 1981, the program has grown in both stature and numbers of clients. In fact, it is now available to more clients than ever before.

Today, about 94,500 Canadians across the country receive VIP. About 70,500 are veterans. This includes war service veterans and younger Canadian Forces veterans. Another 24,000 primary caregivers benefit from the program. Caregivers are provided with housekeeping and/or groundskeeping services, depending on what the veteran was receiving at the time of death. These programs are available for as long as they are needed.

I do not know how one measures the real value of independence, but in dollars and cents, the cost to provide VIP to these thousands of Canadians is $270 million a year. It is an investment we are happy to make. For example, veterans who qualify for the program may receive home care, housekeeping, groundskeeping, meals on wheels and home adaptations, among other things. The exact services depend on the veteran's needs.

In fact, one of the most unique things about VIP is that it offers the customized plan for each client based on a needs assessment. This assessment is done with support from Veterans Affairs staff and is self-managed by recipients in cooperation with provincial and regional health authorities.

Today, the program has become a model for home care, both in Canada and throughout the world. It is applauded for its ability to help senior citizens live independent lives in their homes and their communities until long term care becomes an absolute necessity. Its goal is achieving nothing less than healthy living within the community, an emphasis that was all but unique in North America in 1981 when the program began.

In addition to VIP, Veterans Affairs provides a wide range of support to veterans. If any veterans, or their primary caregivers, feel that they have a need that is not being met and for which they are eligible, we will work with them to assist them to receive the care they need.

The government remains committed to ensuring its programs and services meet the changing needs of its clientele. In its continuing effort to achieve this goal, Veterans Affairs is currently conducting a comprehensive review of its health care programs and services. This review will include a thorough examination of access to VIP services. The impact of the review will undoubtedly lead to a transformation no less profound than the one we have achieved through the consultations and planning that brought us the new veterans charter.

Let me be clear. Canada's government is committed to veterans and their families. The government stands by our military. Our record of achievement speaks for itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, the speech of my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs, was very poignant and well thought out speech.

She has said one thing on which I would like further clarification. She has talked about the eligibility for those who have VIP now. Is the government contemplating an enhancement to the VIP program so all spouses of deceased veterans would be eligible for VIP, regardless of the time of death?

Right now it goes to 1981, but others have passed on before that time. Will the government contemplate changes to the VIP services to include more widows and widowers of deceased veterans?

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. We are always looking to improve the services we can give to veterans. Veterans built our country and they built its reputation. They are known worldwide for being freedom fighters, defenders of the weak. Those are all things of which we as Canadians are very proud.

I had some difficulty when the hon. member was speaking earlier. I know how deeply he feels about veterans. When he talks about his roots, about how his family came here and what it means to him, he gets emotionally charged as do I.

When we stand on November 11 with a veteran, there is no greater honour. These are people who put it all on the line for the things we take for granted in our country every day, such as the freedom to speak our minds and say whatever we want, the freedom to do exactly what we are doing in the House today, debating an issue that is important to all Canadians.

If it is any assurance at all to the hon. member, I have not changed one iota about my dedication to veterans. The minister has not changed one iota about his dedication to veterans. And the Prime Minister is probably the biggest cheerleader that veterans could ever have.

We will make a difference in the lives of veterans. After 13 years of inaction, we will correct the problem.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her active and enthusiastic support for our veterans, which I think all members in this place share.

On a specific matter, the third item within the motion before the House right now refers to the survivors' pension amounts, to increase it to 66% from the current 50%. Has the government considered the motion in regard to that specific item? Is it a matter which the government is prepared to specifically support?

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has not been a part of either the defence committee or the veterans affairs committee, this could be a bit confusing. Of the five items that are mentioned, only one is covered under Veterans Affairs. The other four are all defence issues, and my colleague will speak to that a little later on today.

We have a long row to hoe. One of the biggest problems I hear, and I am sure the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore also hears this, is the access to the VIP program and the problems that veterans have run into over the years.

We are attempting, at this point in time as a new government, to correct a lot of those problems. The Liberals stacked the Veterans Review and Appeal Board with friends and cronies. The former executive assistant to the former prime minister and MP for LaSalle—Émard, Denise Tremblay, was appointed to a five year terms. In fact, a total of nine Liberal politicians or their assistants were on the board when we took office. That was 50% of the serving members.

We believe very firmly that if individuals are to sit on the Veterans Appeal Board, one needs to have the right skill set. The skill set that is required to listen to the appeals of veterans is not who they know politically; it is what they know about veterans issues. It is having served our country and knowing what the problems are after they have come out of service. It is about medical issues, somebody with some medical background who can actually understand what post-traumatic stress syndrome is all about.

We are attempting to do this, but we have to do it slowly. I can tell the member opposite and the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore that sometimes it feels like running through mud up to our knees, but we are making progress. I do not care how long I have to run through this mud, we will fix the problems that veterans in our country face and we will make this the very best place in the entire world to live if one is a veteran. We need to show them every day how much we care, and we are attempting to do exactly that.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the issue of benefits for our Canadian Forces members and veterans. This issue is very important to me because I believe that as Canadians we all owe a great deal to our men and women in uniform.

Our government is firmly committed to ensuring that the people who sacrificed so much receive appropriate compensation and care.

Let there be no doubt that the government will ensure their pension plan, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, fulfills their needs and the needs of their families.

Canadian Forces men and women have more than demanding careers. They undergo significant stress. The jobs are dangerous. The physical demands are great. They deal with long separations from their homes and families.

The pension plan developed for our men and women in uniform reflects the reality of their jobs. It acknowledges the service that Canadian Forces members provide. The fact is military careers, robust careers lasting decades, can end while members are still relatively young. We do not want our veterans worrying about the future of their spouses or their children.

This is an excellent pension plan with many features that average Canadians do not have access to within their own pension plans. The plan contains a solid basic pension formula, generous early retirement provisions, benefits payable to survivors, spouses and children, and it is fully indexed to the cost of living.

In this motion, my hon. colleague wants the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to be amended to allow second spouses of Canadian Forces veterans to access pension rights upon the death of a Canadian Forces member or veteran. We are examining how we can best meet the needs of all Canadians. We need to take into consideration several critical factors, including cost, precedence and existing provisions.

We need, for example, to consider what the typical Canadian private pension plan provides. I feel, perhaps, the hon. member may have overlooked the act's comparatively generous terms. Most private pension plans do not make significant allowances for their members' spouses. If a person marries after his or her job comes to an end, in the eyes of a typical pension plan, that person's spouse or children just do not exist. They get nothing.

The idea is that an employer's responsibility under a pension plan should be to the family that existed during the employee's career. Average Canadians, working for typical Canadian companies, cannot claim benefits for families they acquired 15 years or 20 years after they have left their jobs. Still, we recognize that Canadian Forces members are not average Canadians and their work is far from average.

The job descriptions of Canadian Forces members include sacrifice and risk. It takes a lot out of their youth. Because of that, Canadian Forces members tend to retire at a much earlier age than average. The provisions of the pension plan are responsive, no matter what age a Canadian Forces member retires. We have made generous allowances.

Normal benefits are payable to surviving spouses and any children provided that the marriage takes place before the age of 60. If members marry after the age of 60, they may still ensure their survivors receive a benefit. They may accept a small reduction in their own benefits to make this happen. This choice to provide for survivors is not available to the majority of Canadian pension plans.

Even so, I note that Conservative MPs have recognized this matter as an issue worthy of deeper consideration. For instance, our former colleague Werner Schmidt, the member for Kelowna, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-362, in the previous Parliament. Mr. Schmidt felt that the decision of some forces members to marry later in life should not penalize their spouses in terms of receiving benefits. He felt that the age 60 cutoff was arbitrary.

Indeed, his private member's bill was inspired by the real life case of a veteran and constituent of Mr. Schmidt, Gordon Read. Mr. Read's story is compelling. Mr. Read served 24 years in the RCAF and fought to defend civilization in the Battle of Britain.

That private member's bill was taken up in this Parliament by another Conservative colleague, the member for Prince Edward—Hastings. His bill, Bill C-202, also seeks to eliminate section 31-1 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to remove what many believe is an injustice in the system. However, before we can act we must pause to consider what we are doing, how we should be doing it and how much it is going to cost.

This new government has demonstrated its strong, unwavering support for our soldiers, sailors and aviators.

We have nothing but respect and gratitude for our veterans. We want to meet their needs and their families' needs. Our responsibility to Canadians is to consider the possible repercussions before making changes to an exhaustive and extremely generous plan.

The government is not ignoring this issue. There is a certain reality to the work that our Canadian Forces members do, one that earns them special consideration. The poppies that we wear every year, the yellow ribbons on the backs of our cars, the rallies that have been held across the country have tremendous significance.

During this year, as parliamentary secretary, I have learned a lot about our men and women in uniform and what they endure and what their families sacrifice. I have had the opportunity to cross the country and visit various military bases. The most vivid memory I have, from all my base visits, was my visit to Canadian Forces Base Edmonton when some of our troops returned home from Afghanistan. I saw smiles and tears that expressed a wealth of emotion. I watched as families were reunited. I actually saw fathers meeting their newborn children for the very first time. What struck me was the absolutely unwaivering and unconditional support those families gave to our troops. I will not forget that.

If the very families who suffer heartbreak when troops are deployed can support our men and women in uniform with such determination, then we should certainly be able to do so. We have heard the concerns voiced by our veterans, by Canadian Forces members and by their families. We know the sacrifices they have made, and we are listening to their concerns.

Our government is considering this issue carefully. We want to help our families. We are reviewing the alternatives to find the best options and then we will act.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this motion will go to a vote. Sometimes governments follow through on motions and sometimes they do not. It is one of the problems we have with our current democracy where the spirit and the will of the House of Commons vote on an issue, such as this series of veterans improvements, some that affect the parliamentary secretary's department in particular, is not respected.

Will the government respect this vote? Will it ensure the proper legislation and action immediately takes place? This chamber is protected by our veterans. It is one that has been created through a democracy with a history of vibrancy. Is the member going to live up to the vote on this issue?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the government is closely considering this issue. We are looking at ways that we can act. We recognize the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform.

There is no doubt that we will do everything we can to support our troops and their families when the time comes. I would encourage the member opposite to recognize that some responsibilities need to take place when in government. We have to look at all the considerations, the precedents and the costs. It is not simply a matter of emotion. If it were, we would all act without hesitation. However, the government has to act with responsibility, and we will do exactly that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said a couple of things which frustrates the veterans, such as when he compares their pension plans to the private sector pension plans. I remind him, very respectfully, that these veterans serve the government and the people of Canada. They do not serve private corporations.

When it comes to the deduction of annuity, I will give him a quick example of one. If military personnel or RCMP officers get severely injured and they can no longer work in their line of duty, they will exit the service with a pension. If their injuries are so severe that they can no longer work again, period, they are advised to apply for Canadian Pension disability.

For argument's sake, say the individuals get $3,000 a month from their pensions. They apply for Canada Pension disability, say at the age of 41, and if they injuries are so severe and they can no longer work again, there is a chance they will receive Canada Pension disability. However, the CPP amount they receive is deducted immediately from their superannuation. It does not matter whether they walk out or get carried out of the RCMP or military. It is simply not fair.

Will the member at least say today in the House that the government would be seriously willing to look at this issue in the near future?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I tried to explain in my short speech, the pension plan that the members benefit from does in fact reflect the dangerous circumstances of their work. It has a solid basic pension formula that has very generous retirement provisions and benefits payable to survivors that are indexed to inflation.

We all want to do more for our forces, for our men and women in uniform and their families. That is why this government is taking the time to look at this issue. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs has been working on this file for many years. She has been to my constituency and has talked to the many veterans there about how we can improve things.

The member should have no doubt that we will do everything we can within our means to support our men and women in uniform.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask our colleague a question. To begin with, I recognize that the charter brings significant improvements to the lives of our veterans. However, the charter says nothing about one major concern: it does nothing about veterans or former military personnel.

The problems at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown with agent orange and agent purple; or the people, the young people with post-traumatic stress syndrome—these are not mentioned in this charter and there is no plan to improve their situation.

I would like to ask my colleague who just spoke whether the government is planning to help these young people by modifying our basic charter, which is pretty good despite all this.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question most directly, I can tell the member that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is working very actively on this file to address the needs of the people at Gagetown and those who served there in the past. The member can rest assured that we will get to the bottom of this as quickly as we can.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and join in this very important debate. It is a very timely debate as we quickly approach Veterans' Week here in Canada.

I am going to take a bit of a risk at first and share a quote with the House, not a Canadian quote but a quote from a past U.S. president. The reason I use it is more for the fact that it frames the debate we are having today. It was George Washington who said that a nation will be measured by how in fact that nation shows honour and respect for its war veterans. I think that is what today's debate is about. It is about respect for those who have served the country, those who have answered the call. We enter into that debate today.

As well, I want to recognize my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore and the work that he has done with veterans over a number of years and certainly throughout his time here in the House. I listened with great interest to his presentation to the House earlier when he presented the motion and I fully recognize the emotion expressed during his remarks.

My colleague from Sydney—Victoria is another member of this House who stands on a very similar piece of real estate, whose parents also came from Holland in very similar circumstances, so I know that story very well. As Canadians, many of us understand the sacrifice and understand what a tremendous country we live in, but for those who were impacted, who started their lives here and were provided with opportunity in this great country as a result of Canadian Forces sacrificing so much on foreign soil, it even goes deeper into the understanding of those who have actually lived with it and whose parents have been the benefactors of those actions.

I think the House is united on one thing and that is respect for all veterans and all those who served our country. Last year here in this House, the former minister of defence, in his comments prior to Remembrance Day services, was very poignant in reflecting on the passing of Ernest “Smokey” Smith, Canada's last Victoria Cross recipient. It was very emotional and it was a very important and significant benchmark for veterans in this country. What was identified there certainly came home to me. In my hometown of Glace Bay, we had a Victoria Cross recipient as well, John Bernard Croak. Our Legion in Glace Bay carries the name of John Bernard Croak .

In his comments to the chamber, the former minister spoke about the common thread of “service and heroism” shared by each and every member who steps forward to represent their country and to serve in the Canadian Forces. They share that common thread, and I think each of us here in this chamber can identify those veterans in our communities who, as young people, probably went through the same emotions as Smokey Smith and John Bernard Croak and other heroes. As for what motivated them to answer that call, I think that thread runs through each and every community and every municipality in this country.

The great Canadian tradition of service and heroism continues to be emulated by many young soldiers, the young men and women who continue to serve in our armed forces. There is an inordinate number of people from eastern Canada and the Atlantic provinces who answer that call. We have a disproportionate number of Atlantic Canadians who enlist in the Canadian Forces. I think it goes well beyond economic need. I think it is a true sense of duty, a true sense of wanting to serve this great nation. Certainly Canadians from the Atlantic provinces respond very willingly.

If any member were to read any management book or any coaching book, it would be recognized that what is a prime motivator is neither fame nor fortune. It is not money. It is respect. This is what Bill C-221 is about. That is what today's motion is about. It is about respect. It is about respect for our veterans who have served this great nation.

The NDP motion itself is so broad and far-reaching that we could have a day of debate on each aspect of the motion. A number of these aspects are very complex and impact on other issues. The pension issues are very involved and complex.

However, I was buoyed by my conversations with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore in that the intent of the motion today is to make sure that these issues are brought forward and put in front of the government for further study, and to make sure that if recommendations are made, they are acted on. It is important that the issues do not die, do not slip onto the back burner. The issues raised in the motion are important to our veterans and to Canadians. Through this motion and the debate in the House today, these issues will be brought forward.

I want to look at each aspect of the motion. I will jump the queue and look at the second point first because it is an issue that is close and personal to me in light of the fact that a champion of the veterans independence program is a constituent of mine. Many members of the House know Joyce Carter's name. I have spoken of Joyce's work and her commitment to the extension of VIP benefits to many Canadians.

As the member said, what we want to see when our veterans retire and get on in years is that they are able to live their lives in comfort and dignity. That really is the essence of the veterans independence program. It allows for some aspects of home care and maintenance, some transportation needs, nutritional services and health support services. Those are the aspects of the VIP that are essential to our veterans.

During the last election campaign, the current Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, went on record to say--and it was part of the Conservative campaign platform--that the veterans independence program would be extended to all veterans of all wars, to Korean veterans, and their spouses, and that there would be a full and immediate extension to cover all these veterans. I want to quote that letter to make sure that it is on the record.

Here is what the Prime Minister said in a piece of correspondence that went to Joyce Carter, this lady from St. Peters in my constituency:

--a Conservative government would immediately--

Let me repeat those words so that all members know:

--a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the veteran died....

That is in writing. That letter was received by Joyce Carter from the member's office. This is something that we had in testimony the other day from veterans from the Korean war. They are advocating this. The Canadian Legion is advocating this. Certainly this is something that we would hope the government will move on. We hope the government will honour its commitment to those veterans. The government extended the promise and put forward the promise and we would hope that the government will do this and do it immediately.

The second aspect would be to amend section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act so that the second spouses of Canadian Forces members and veterans have access to pension rights upon the death of Canadian Forces members or veterans.

This is typically referred to as the “gold diggers clause”. Certainly, it is one that has been discussed on a number of occasions. In past governments, concerns were raised about it. However, I think we are being somewhat hypocritical if we do not support this provision in the motion because MPs or other civil servants are not treated the same as the veterans in this particular situation. We have to weigh that into our decision and ensure that we discuss this important aspect.

An important other aspect to this particular issue, as well, is that it does not affect a whole lot of people. According to DND records, there are only about 141 retirees who have made the choice to remarry and reduce their own monthly pensions so that their spouses can get survivor allowances. So, it is not a great deal of money to the treasury, but it seems to be a great injustice.

I know some throw around the Anna Nicole Smith aspect and ask about what happens if a 92-year-old veteran marries an 18-year-old and we have to pay. All the more power to him if a 92-year-old veteran can marry an 18-year-old; he has something going for him. However, I do not think we can dismiss this aspect of the motion by citing those types of examples. This motion will allow it to come back to committee, so that this can be discussed and we can hang realistic numbers off it and then make the decision from there.

As things change in the military and as the demands on our military change, over the last number of years especially, we are seeing a greater responsibility and a different type of forces. However, in this particular case, when we are looking at the change warranted through this motion, I want to bring to the attention of members a court case that is being waged by Reg Warkentin and his lawyer David Baker. They are arguing that the provision contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, this was being pursued under the court challenges program. We know that the court challenges program was just cut and taken away in the last round of cuts made by this government, so probably this court challenge will die, which is truly unfortunate. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of this motion. Hopefully, each member, when they come to vote on this motion, will entertain this somewhat of an injustice.

I want to go on record with regard to the fifth portion of the motion which deals with the elimination of the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled Canadian Forces members and the clawback. We would need a roomful of actuaries and pension specialists. We can try to boil it down into some simplistic terms, but I do not think it is that simplistic.

We have been understanding for a number of years now that there is an integration between the two programs, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the CPP, and in fact there is not a clawback.

Hopefully, this will come out over the course of the debate today to indicate to me why that is not so. I recognize that there is a difference. It appears in some cases that the benefit of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act combined with the CPP benefit is slightly less than the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act benefit for the veteran after he became eligible for CPP. Hopefully, that will come out in the debate today.

There are aspects of this motion that make a great deal of sense. I know that we are united in the House in our support for veterans, and what we should be doing and what we can be doing. I know the parliamentary secretary has long been a hard-working and passionate advocate for veterans issues.

Hopefully, in supporting the motion this will further enable a committee and the government to take greater strides, and provide greater support for our veterans and certainly give them the respect and support that they so greatly warrant.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the debate. I would like to correct the record since the hon. member wants to put things on the record. The letter that he referred to was written and signed by a staff member in the official opposition office, not the current Prime Minister. That does not make it any less valid. We are moving forward on those promises that were made.

With regard to Mrs. Carter, I know the member opposite has been in this riding for quite a long while and she has been his constituent for quite a long while. I am wondering if the member would care to talk about the fact that when he was the parliamentary secretary to the then prime minister, he had the ear of the then prime minister but did not seem to be able to make any kind of change in this matter.

The member mentioned Smokey Smith. I have had the privilege of meeting Smokey Smith and a number of other wonderful veterans. As I have said so often before, there is really nothing that can compare to walking through history with those who created it. It is something I will take to my death. I will never forget that experience.

Another thing I would also like to share is the tombstone that I read. I have been to Dieppe, I have been to the Aboriginal Spiritual Journey, and I have been to the Italian campaign. This particular tombstone is another thing that will never leave my memory. The inscription was simple. It said: “To the world he was only one, to us he was the only one”, and it was signed by the parents of this young soldier who died far too early in life. I think he was 17.

I would like to give the opportunity then to the member opposite to perhaps reflect on the fact that in the 1995 federal budget, the Liberals actually cut funding to veterans. Among the cuts was the elimination of thousands of allied veterans from federal benefits and they charged veterans $5 to take a cab ride.

Under the Liberals, veterans found it harder to qualify for benefits after being forced to battle the government for years. I can speak from personal experience on that. I dealt with a veteran in my own riding who had tried for more than a dozen years to get what he had earned from his own government and he could not get it.

The Liberals also considered trimming 23,000 widows from the VIP. The only reason they did not do it was because the Conservative Party, which was then the official opposition, made life so uncomfortable they did not dare. I await the response from the member opposite.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as theparliamentary secretary said, cuts were made in 1995 in a number of different veterans programs and not just exclusively to veterans but on a broad range.

I will give a short history lesson. They were made for financial responsibility. We had to right this financial house. The country was off the rails with spending. There was $48 billion more each year being spent than was brought into the federal coffers. Cuts were made in health care, defence and transportation. Every aspect of what we were doing as a federal government were cut and Canadians sacrificed. Yes, Canadian veterans also sacrificed.

However, what the member will understand was that the men who fought and died for this country would have been embarrassed with the way that the country was being run, on a credit card. They know that tough decisions had to be made and tough decisions were made in 1995, but once that financial house was righted, once the ship was righted, then investments were made back into health care. The money was put back into the VIP. We went back to the original 1981 date and money was put back into the budget. We continued to make those investments in those types of programs.

Tough decisions were made. I think our veterans would understand and would applaud a government for taking a tough and principled stand, and making those reinvestments when the time was proper.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member on his speech and his effort to stand up for veterans.

My riding is home to many veterans. We are planning to hold an event with them on Saturday, November 11, Remembrance Day. As my colleague said, what he is asking on behalf of veterans would not cost a fortune. He is not trying to make veterans rich with this bill. He wants some respect and dignity for them. I understand that, and I think that is what veterans want. My colleague also mentioned that during the last election campaign, the Conservative government made a commitment to help veterans and treat them fairly.

My question is short and simple. In his speech, the member mentioned that he was hoping for support from the Conservative government. What would keep the government from supporting this motion?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I see nothing here pre-empting the government. I prefaced my comments to the parliamentary secretary with regard to the fiscal situation the federal Liberal government found itself in through the mid-1990s. It was a financial disaster and tough cuts had to be made.

Canadians were told that once we made the cuts we should be able to balance the books, pay down some debt, and reinvest in some social programs that were important to Canadians. That strategy taken in the mid-1990s is paying off. We saw it just recently with $13 billion of surplus handed to the government, the best set of books that have been handed from an outgoing government to an incoming government. However, that money, instead of being reinvested in Canadians, in our veterans and social programs, was placed on the debt.

I am all for debt retirement, for attacking the debt and the burden that the debt places on our books, but that should not pre-empt us from investing in Canadians. The motion today talks about reinvesting in the veterans who have served the country. I do not think that pre-empts the government from stepping up and doing what it promised in the last election, immediately extending the VIP to all veterans and veterans' widows.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the clawback and the need for further discussion on what is called the benefit reduction when members reach the age of 65.

He knows very well that members of the forces receive their superannuation pension and at age 60 they can elect to take their Canada pension plan, which is reduced by one-third if they elect to take it earlier. They already have had one-third taken off their Canada pension. They will get to collect, for example, $3,000 and $500 with no deductions. They just pay the taxes on these amounts. When they reach 65 the amount they would have received from Canada pension is deducted from their superannuation, and of course OAS kicks in. I have many documents in my office which show they would have less take home money at age 65 than they would have at age 64. There is definitely a clawback in this case. In some cases a veteran may receive $17 more if all the taxes and everything else are included.

The men and women of our services live extraordinary lives. They move from place to place; we have heard the term army brats. Members' spouses do not get a chance to work on a full time basis. These men and women do not get the opportunity to purchase a home and earn equity. When they retire, they do not have the investments or other pensions that we in normal jobs have. They are asking for the restoration of their financial dignity. They want to keep more of their own money at age 65.

The member is correct that this is a complicated issue. That is why we are encouraging the government to look at this very seriously and make recommendations so that we can give more financial dignity to our veterans.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and I have been accused from time to time of being like-minded and I think on this particular issue this is one of those times. I would certainly like to learn more about this issue from specialists in this area. I would hope that the government would refer this to committee for further study.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to mention that I am pleased to be sharing my time with my colleague from Montcalm.

Next, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, whom I met when he was a vital member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, since the two committees were joined at the time.

I know that my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore has always been an ardent defender of veterans. He made a tremendous contribution to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

I would also like to say that the Bloc Québécois, as a whole, will certainly support the member's motion. We also agree with the division of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs into two committees, which occurred at the beginning of the Conservative government's term. Despite my colleague's past efforts, it seems to me that veterans, at the time, were the poor relation of that committee. There was also a certain degree of incongruity, since the committee fell under the responsibility or the will of two different ministers. I therefore find the situation much improved today.

I know that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs can now devote themselves and their efforts solely to defending our veterans, who are very much in need. These people risked their lives trying to preserve important, democratic values.

We must be careful not to send regrettable messages to people who were wounded along the way, after their active service was complete. I use the term “wounded”, but this concept goes beyond physical wounds and also includes psychological wounds. I believe that more people now return from these theatres of operation psychologically wounded than physically wounded. It is important nonetheless to have a committee to look after their interests. We will support the hon. member's motion because there is still a long way to go.

Some progress has been made. For one thing, at the time, we had passed BillC-45, which was mainly for veterans, by providing them with a charter. We may have had good intentions in doing that, but the charter left a few things out. And my colleague is proposing important measures to improve it. Certainly there will be others, but four good measures is at least a step in the right direction. That is the reason why the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the motion by my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore.

I said that there was still work left to do. For example, just yesterday, we heard the ombudsman for the armed forces saying that the people who served in Kuwait or in Afghanistan not so long ago—four or five years ago—are having major problems.

Sometimes there are things that are hard to explain, agent orange being another example. That happened in the Gagetown area. When we are told in committee that the list of people who spent time there during the period when it was being sprayed in large volumes has been lost, we have some doubts. We conclude that the government often wants to scrimp and save on the backs of people who truly left part of their lives, whether psychologically or physically, in the theatre of operations.

The government has a tendency to move quickly. I have to say that I notice that as soon as a major problem arises and someone has left the forces, National Defence decides that it is no longer its problem, it is now a Veterans Affairs problem. I have said that to committees and I say it again here publicly.

As well, National Defence should be putting much more effort into prevention. Not to say that we are going to leave less up to Veterans Affairs, but because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Other armies—the American and British, for instance—pay special attention to individuals leaving the armed forces who are not allowed to remain for medical reasons. Here, this is unfortunately not how we think. In fact, National Defence tells veterans that their service is finished for medical reasons, and that now, because they were deployed in the theatre of operations, they are the responsibility of Veterans Affairs Canada, and they are sent there, and National Defence is no longer concerned with them. Something has to be done about this.

The first aspect of the motion deals with the fact that veterans might get married after age 60 and have a new wife, and the new wife was no longer entitled to compensation after her husband died.

We consider this to be truly discriminatory. In my opinion, the motion fixes this problem.

Another aspect of the motion that is important to us is the Veterans Independence Program, the VIP. This is not something new; we discussed it in 2002 and in 2003. The previous government had announced, with much fanfare, that it was now going to be looking after veterans’ widows, because they were entitled to home help, whether it be for housework or for yard work, so that they could keep their homes as long as possible. This is important for them.

Let us not forget that the veterans' wives also fought, perhaps not as hard as the men since they were not on the front line, but they participated in the war effort. My mother married a soldier. She married my father during the Second World War. I assure you that to hear her stories she was very worried about her husband who was overseas. This too was valuable. It is all well and good to say that people went to battle, but let us not forget the work of the women who stayed behind and kept the war economy going. An army needs bullets for its guns in the theatre of operations and since all the men were deployed to the other side of the ocean, the women did their part to keep this industry operating. We must not forget them.

The former government said it would recognize 10,000 women who would be entitled to the allowance when their husbands died. Upon further investigation, it became apparent that 23,000 women had been forgotten. At the time, we fought with our colleagues in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and we won the fight. We did not want to let specific dates be an impediment. If a woman lost her husband before June 17, 2002, she could have the pension. If she lost him after June 17, 2002, she could not. We thought that did not make sense. Why have a date? Why not recognize that the effort was shared by everyone and that all should be entitled? We absolutely agree with our colleague's proposal in the second item.

There are a number of other items, but I see that time is running out so I will make my closing statements. As I was saying, the Department of National Defence absolutely needs to be convinced to put an end to this division. It is all well and good to say there are two committees, but in fact and in practice, DND does not do enough to address the fallout of tragic events that people are currently experiencing.

I spoke about agent orange but I could also have spoken about post-traumatic stress syndrome. Several groups are currently pressuring the government because they are not receiving any services from National Defence or Veterans Affairs. Who is providing these services? The provincial health services. When a soldier is injured and goes to a public hospital in Quebec, the bill is sent to the Department of National Defence. When a soldier is injured but is no longer an employee of the department, he is covered by the provincial health authority. In my opinion, the Department of National Defence needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror. I believe that my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles knows it and is applying pressure in this regard.

The Department of Veterans Affairs will need an ombudsman. We do not need an ombudsman for National Defence as there already is one, ho is doing both jobs. We need another one just for Veterans Affairs. Above all—and I believe my colleague will insist on this point this afternoon— the ombudsman must be independent of the minister.

It makes no sense for an ombudsman to report to the minister because the minister can exercise some control. If the ombudsman gave the minister a report and the minister did not agree, the minister could recommend to the governor in council— that is, the cabinet—that the ombudsman's contract not be renewed. That does not make sense.

The ombudsman for the armed forces and the future ombudsman for veterans must report to Parliament which, in its wisdom, will decide on how to follow up on the ombudsman's report.

I thank my colleagues for their attention and I am ready to answer questions.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks. He and I sit on the defence committee. I have spent a lot of time talking to my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia as well.

This debate is a good one. It is one where we need to air a number of issues. They need to be aired honestly and with all of the facts on the table, and I think that will come out over the course of the day.

My question is with respect to post-traumatic stress syndrome. I believe my colleague is aware, and I wonder if he has some comment on the changes that the military is making today in terms of returning veterans from Afghanistan, the treatment that they get en route to coming back home that does in fact address specifically the issue of PTSD, and the follow-up they get to that potential situation after they have arrived back in Canada.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we must give credit where credit is due. I have seen an improvement in the last few years. Before leaving the operational theatre, soldiers returning from Afghanistan are given debriefings. And they receive additional debriefings upon their arrival here. They also have access to psychological support, as needed.

We must not forget or overlook those who took part in the Bosnia-Herzegovina war, those who were there during the early years of the war in Afghanistan, and those who fought in Cyprus.

Earlier I mentioned that some 20 groups are joining forces to try to defend their interests. The problem is that no one will help them. I believe that this is the problem that needs to be solved. Things are not perfect. There is still much work to be done.

At the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue hospital, only five beds are available for people struggling with PTSD. Yet, hundreds of soldiers suffer from this. It is not enough.

These people are confined to their homes and their entire bodies tremble from the psychological shock. No one is there to help them and the suicide rate is rising. We must take care of these people. It is the government's responsibility to do so, including both the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada.