House of Commons Hansard #75 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was forces.

Topics

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

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

The motion.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

The manipulation of the motion. It is easy to manipulate people's emotions. It is more difficult to do the right thing with all the facts.

It is difficult to have the integrity and honesty to do it when I am taking money out of my own pocket, but that is what I am doing.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, excuse me, my apologies for interrupting, but I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to set the record clearly straight on something that happened yesterday. As recorded in Hansard on page 4570 during the conducting of a vote on a private member's bill I rose on a point of order after you had declared that the motion was carried on division.

I would like to put on the record what actually happened and this is how it occurred. If you look at the speeches on that particular bill, you will see that a number of our members indicated that they were voting against it. When you called for the question, there were a number of us who were saying no and I know why you did not hear us. It is because there were many Liberals right next to you, they had your ear and they were very, very loud and so our gentle nos were not heard. I rose on a point of order after that.

There is one other factor. The vote was conducted in French and we who are unilingual Canadians appreciate the work of the interpreters so much, but there is about a five to eight second delay. When you were already proceeding to declare the motion cast, that was only the time at which we were receiving the interpretation.

Mr. Speaker, with that clarification I want you to know that in my opinion you did everything exactly right. Having heard some nos, you then proceeded to ask for all the yeas and all the nays.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I very much appreciate the generosity of the hon. member, but this matter was dealt with last night, and I thank you.

Before I move to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, I would like to inform the House that it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, Foreign Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important motion brought forward by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. I will be splitting my time with my NDP colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I have a few things that I want to say on behalf of the veterans in my own community and across the country and on behalf of my caucus in response to some of what I have heard so far in the debate. There may be a fair bit of confusion on all sides where this issue is concerned. I would recommend very strongly that the House take the advice of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who has worked on this issue for a long time and knows about what he speaks.

We should take a chance and step up with courage on behalf of our veterans and pass the motion. Let us get it into committee so that folks can come forward and make their case to all of us. Together we can come up with a bill to meet the needs of the veterans and of the government in terms of being accountable and managing finances responsibly. I would suggest very strongly that is the attitude we should take on the motion before us.

Having said that, I am a little disappointed that we still have not heard clearly from the government members whether they are going to support the motion and allow it to go forward. I am pleased that the Liberals and the Bloc are going to support my colleague and our caucus in this effort. It is an important and noble work that we do here. We do a lot of work in this place, but I do not think there is much of it that can be classified as noble in the same way that today's motion can be classified.

All of us have veterans in our ridings who are struggling to make ends meet. They are trying to participate and to contribute, but they are finding it hard because the cost of living keeps going up. They have been hurt in many instances. They came back from the war with skills that in many cases were not adaptable to the workplace at that time, and even more important, the workplace that is there now. They struggle. They are trying to find a way to make ends meet. They are not as lucky as the member for Edmonton Centre who was able to go on to a career in finance and then to become a member of Parliament with all that means in terms of income, security and support.

Many of the veterans in my community are poor. They struggle from day to day to pay the rent, to feed themselves, to look after their families, to clothe themselves. They want to participate in the community. They want to go to the odd hockey game and enjoy the life of the community. They fought across the water so that we would be free to do just that.

We stand here today, in particular the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, to drive this agenda. We ask respectfully for the support of the House to sent the motion to a committee so that we can deal with some of the issues that have been raised and which have to be addressed. I do not think there is anybody here, including the member Sackville—Eastern Shore, who wants to put something through simply because it is the emotionally feel good thing to do. We want to do it because it is the right thing to do. We want to do it because it is the smart thing to do. We want to do it because it will help veterans in the long run.

I say to the members of the government caucus, and I often say this to myself in terms of my public life and the work that I do as a member of Parliament, if one cannot be helpful, at least do no harm. The do no harm position where this motion is concerned is to move it forward because veterans are expecting us to do that for them and with them.

I want to address another issue that was raised by some of the members, that possibly the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore went to bed one night, had a dream about how wonderful it would be to do this, that and the other thing on behalf of veterans, got up the next morning, wrote it down, and decided to introduce it as a motion in the House. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, and the member for Edmonton Centre has given him credit for this, has worked long and hard on this file. He has worked directly with veterans over a long period of time. He is known in this place and around the country as a bit of a champion on behalf of veterans. I think he would probably be recognized in any legion hall, which he walked into, as someone who stands up, is not afraid, has courage and speaks passionately and emotionally on behalf of veterans.

What he brings before us here today is the result of work done by veterans and veterans organizations. They looked at the situation within which their members had to live on a day to day basis in their communities. They met with their veterans. They asked them what they thought the government could do to help them in their situations, such as poverty, health issues, lack of good housing and transportation, all the challenges that men and women across the country face on a day to day basis, particularly some of our veterans who have been hurt, who have emotional scars, who perhaps have lost family and are trying to keep it all together.

They tapped into the emotional vein of those who went and did a job that not many of the rest of us would have been willing to do. They put their lives on the line to ensure that we could continue to enjoy the freedom, peace and good government. Then when they came back, they perhaps found themselves in a situation where they felt, in the quiet of their room, as they reflected on this at night, that maybe no one really cared or maybe what they had done was not important.

Therefore, one of the ways we can indicate to them and to our men and women in the armed forces, going forward, is to ensure that all of them are well looked after and helped.

I know in my community, and in the community that I grew up in as a young man after I came to Canada from Ireland in 1960, the legion was the centre and heart of the community. Legion members back in the 1960s and 1970s were young. They worked at the plants. They coached hockey and baseball teams. They were fathers and mothers of the children who went to school. They ran the PTAs. They were on the school board. They were the heart of our community.

When our community celebrated, we went to the legion hall. On a Friday night in Wawa, the adults would be drinking, dancing and singing in the basement while upstairs was teen town. We would all be there having a great time listening to music, having sock hops.

Under this rubric of do no harm, the cuts the government has made recently will affect our veterans as well, cuts to housing, literacy and particularly, to the volunteer not for profit sector. It is the volunteers in our community who support and look after these people, who were the heart and soul of our community. They are now our elders, our seniors in their waning years. The volunteers in our community ensure they have a quality of life that speaks of dignity and respect. The government has cut serious money out of the programs and the ability of those volunteer not for profit sectors to do this job.

If the government is going to do that, then maybe it needs to be doing something else to make up for it. This is one way it could do that.

I appeal particularly to members of the government caucus, and I know the Liberals, the Bloc and ourselves will do this, to move it forward one more step so we can get it to committee, so we can have that very important, real and intelligent discussion about what the right thing is to do. We can sort out the numbers. Is it $2 billion or is it $300,000 to $500,000? There is a difference of opinion on the numbers as we go forward. We can do the math in a number of different ways.

I ask the member for Edmonton Centre, knowing where he comes from, what his experience is and his passion for this, to work with us to move this ahead, to do the best we can with what we have and at least salvage--

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank all members for their speeches. All of them have been well-meaning, sincere and so on, regardless from where we come. I acknowledge and thank him for his statement, that there is such good governance in the country. I appreciate that.

One thing he brought up were the volunteers. Does he really think people stop volunteering because there is no organization with people being paid to tell them to volunteer?

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that for a second, but there are supports that volunteers need to do that work effectively.

More and more we find volunteers being asked to do work that is sophisticated, technical in nature and it requires a certain level of expertise. They need training, support and sometimes they need transportation. There is a whole bunch of things that well-meaning volunteers need to have in place if they are to do their work and be effective.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned at least three or four times in his speech about sending this to committee. It is not going to committee and we should not cause anybody to misunderstand what happening. When it says “in the opinion of the House”, it is to capture the mood of the House.

My comment for the member, given this is not bill to go to committee, is this. The sample speech the Minister of Veterans Affairs send out to us basically said that we owed veterans an enormous debt and that debt could only be repaid through remembrance. I disagree with that point, and I hope the member does as well. We can show our appreciation for seniors by at least picking up one or two of these suggestions and making them happen.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that this is a motion and not a bill. The hope was that somebody like the member for Edmonton Centre might talk to his minister and bring it forward as a bill, which we could take to committee to discuss and perhaps do the right thing.

I suggest there is a variety of different ways we can help our veterans. I spoke about stopping the cuts to the volunteer and not for profit sector, putting in place an affordable housing initiative across the country to would provide affordable housing to some of the veterans who are finding it difficult to stay in their own homes or to pay the mortgages and taxes on the homes they are in now.

There is a myriad of ways that the government can be helpful to our veterans. It just takes political will and it means an investment of resources. As it said in the paper the other day, we are awash in surplus cash around here so why not spend it in a way that would see some of our vets getting some relief.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's I believe used the word “manipulation”, as if I woke up, had an epiphany on how to put the government's back to the wall by coming up with something and throwing it out there for debate. That is not true.

There are three individuals in my riding, all ex-servicemen, who served just as proudly as the member from Edmonton and others. John Labelle, Roger Boutin and Mel Pittman came to me and asked if there was anything that could be done to bring this to the House of Commons. This was almost two years ago. They themselves set up the website. They themselves encouraged debate among some very important people from across the country, including members of the RCMP. They are the ones who asked me to put this forward.

If the government thinks it can support only certain parts of this motion and cannot support the others, then vote for it. We will move the issues that it finds contentious into a committee to move it forward so we can respect the wishes of constituents who asked us to do the very same thing.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I had a lot of surprises when I was elected in 2004. One of them was the number of veterans who came into my office asking for help with very basic day to day issues. They were looking for help with respect to getting money to put food on the table and to pay their rent. They were also looking for help with respect to finding health care or transportation.

This is an important motion. It is an important motion for my constituency. I suggest it is an important--

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion. I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for sharing his time with me and for very ably outlining some of the issues facing veterans. I must thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his tireless work on behalf of veterans and their families.

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has rightly pointed out the fact that this motion was not some light bulb going on in the middle of the night. The motion was the result of his working very closely with veterans and their families and with veterans organizations, talking about some of the critically important issues facing them. The motion is the result of input from people in his riding and from other parts of Canada. It is incumbent upon us, as members of the House, to hear what veterans and their families are saying is important to them. I encourage each and every member in the House to support the motion and the work that has been done by the member for Sackville--Eastern Shore.

As the member for Sault Ste. Marie pointed out, one of the things we do as parliamentarians is work with people who come into our constituency offices. Oftentimes it is heartbreaking to hear the stories from veterans and their families. These are men and women who have served our country ably. They have often given up time with their children as they were growing up. These men and women came back to Canada as changed people. They lost not only years, but they often lost some innocence. After having served this time for their country, it is important that we recognize their efforts not only annually, but also recognize that they deserve a quality of life.

A couple of things I heard from veterans surprised me and disappointed me. The men and women who work in veterans affairs are able and caring, but oftentimes our veterans are very frustrated by bureaucratic tangles, which are difficult for them to sort through. They will fill in one piece of paper and then they are told they need another piece of paper. If they do not have somebody to advocate on their behalf, they get lost in the tangled bureaucracy.

A couple of medical issues have come before us and one of them is around hearing loss. Many of these veterans are now at the stage where they are suffering fairly serious hearing loss. They are often told by the bureaucracy that the hearing loss is just a part of natural aging and those kinds of things. If they need support for hearing loss, we should be able to step up and help them. Many of our veterans are living on inadequate amounts of money and they just do not have the wherewithal to buy the kinds of hearing equipment they need.

The other thing we have heard from veterans has to do with the challenges they face with respect to their pensions. Whether they need some assistance in completing paperwork or extra documentation, we need to bend over backwards to ensure they get all the assistance they need. We should make it as easy as possible for them to access the benefits to which they are entitled.

Some veterans who served have been deemed to not have enough time in active duty. The rules say that the individual must have served on full time active service for a minimum of 365 days during either of the following periods: August 4, 1914 to August 31, 1921 or September 1, 1939 to August 15, 1945.

I have heard stories from veterans who have come to my office that they had 323 days, or 315 days or 340 days. Surely there must be something we can do for these veterans. There must be some latitude. Some of them did serve a period of time at the end of the war, but just do not have that magic 365 days. I know people will say that there must be a cutoff, but we also must recognize the dislocation in the lives of these people. I would urge us to take a look at this problem, which is admittedly facing a small number but it is impacting on their quality of life.

There are so many issues facing veterans. I must mention a man by the name of Frank White from my riding, who has been a tireless worker on the Korean war service medal. He has been working hard over a number of years to keep this issue front and centre. He has written letters to the current Prime Minister, the past prime minister, the ministers and members of Parliament. Korean war veterans are asking for some appropriate recognition for the Korean war service medal. I would encourage this House to support the Korean veterans on this issue.

There are numerous issues and I want to touch on one other, but before I do, I want to specifically mention that this is the 60th anniversary of the war brides. We know that many women married Canadian Forces personnel and came to Canada to start a new life. I was happy to be able to attend a tea on the weekend at which the women there informed me of the statistics that say the war brides and their partners are responsible for 25% of the new generation that came about, so I think we owe a word of gratitude to those war brides.

The final thing I really do need to touch on is aboriginal peoples. Cliff Chadderton, the chair of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada, has been working again to have full and equal recognition of aboriginal peoples. In his Cliff's Corner article, he outlines a whole series of events touching on aboriginal people.

A newspaper article in the Edmonton Journal of June 22, 2006, talks about the following facts:

More than 3,000 aboriginal troops served in the Second World War, and several hundred more in Korea. Many were denied the same compensation, retraining and housing services provided to others who returned from duty. They were denied because they lacked education, lived off-reserve or were outright targets of racism.

Although there has been some remedy, it did not go far enough. Just to let members know, on June 21, 2002, the then minister of veterans affairs offered the sum of $39 million as compensation for approximately 1,800 treaty Indians who had returned to the reservation lands following their war service. However, the problem with this is that it did not recognize a whole class of people, including Métis and aboriginal peoples who lived off reserve.

Mr. Chadderton and others have been working over a number of years and asking that this wrong be righted. He has indicated that this agreement to pay out the 1,800 people on reserve, or their families, is actually an admission of failure on the part of the government to make provisions for a certain class of Indians on the same basis as that offered to other veterans under the Veterans' Land Act. He went on to talk about the fact that for all aboriginal veterans or their widows, it was based on demonstrated discrimination, in that they were deprived of post-war rehabilitation benefits available to non-native war veterans.

In this day and age, the number of aboriginal veterans is declining. We should move expeditiously to right this wrong. We have already acknowledged the 1,800 people on reserve. We need to acknowledge the Métis people and the off reserve people to make sure there is adequate recognition of the sacrifices they made for this country.

In closing, we need to acknowledge our veterans. We need to acknowledge their families. I would encourage all members of this House to support the motion of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention and I also want to thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for bringing this motion forward. I think it is fitting that in Veterans' Week we are having a day-long debate in the House of Commons about our veterans, who paid the ultimate sacrifice by going to two world wars, the Korean war and numerous peacekeeping missions around the world. And now we have veterans already returning from our war effort in Afghanistan.

I am so proud of and grateful for our veterans. Our ability to live our free lifestyle, to have the standard of living that we do and not to be under the thumb of anarchy and oppressed like some in the world is largely due to the huge sacrifice and effort made by our veterans.

There are a lot of parts of the motion that I can support and that I think the government can support, but the one thing that does present a real concern to me is messing around with the Canadian Forces superannuation fund.

I have talked to a lot of veterans in my riding. I have 17 legion branches and a couple of army, air force and navy veterans associations as well. I have spoken to them. They often hear that they are getting shortchanged when their annuities transfer over when the CPP benefit starts getting paid out at age 65.

The way the plan was originally envisioned and developed back in 1966, it took into consideration that CPP was a reality and that all Canadians, including civil servants and people who served in the armed forces, the RCMP and other government jobs, would receive CPP benefits and that the annuity would then adjust accordingly, so that the overall dollars they received, early retirement versus after age 65, would not change. It would be the exact same dollar figure.

I am concerned that if we move forward with some of the suggestions here they would actually increase the cost, and not just to government. My concern is that it is going to increase the cost of the premiums to the people currently involved in the plan. That is going to have a great impact on today's soldiers. I want to know why those members would want to off-load this cost onto today's soldiers.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, the current government has a surplus. There are numbers of mechanisms by which we could look at this. I think what we really need to do is talk about our commitment to veterans and their families. There is a saying about how if there is a will there is a way, and I would argue that if we are asking Canadian men and women to lay their lives on the line, then we have to be willing to make sure they are well looked after when they return to this country.

If we are just going to knock everything down to dollars and cents when we are asking people to do the kind of work that many of us probably are not prepared to do, I think we actually have to make sure that we support them when they come home.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask further, then, of the member, what price do we put on the life of a veteran? It seems that the Conservatives are looking at this strictly in terms of dollars and cents. This is not about costs, although we are all cognizant of the need to do things in a fiscally responsible way. This is about recognizing our veterans, who have given so much for our peace and our freedom.

The question becomes, then, does the government not have the means today, with a $13 billion surplus that was just put against the debt, with not a penny put toward veterans? Do we just say that is all we can do even though we have that kind of surplus? Or do we start to say that it matters and therefore we will do something important? For example, we will follow what other institutions do and simply increase survivors' benefits from 50% to 66%. Everybody else does it. Why can this government not do it for our veterans?

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North for her intervention. She is our very able financial critic, and if anybody can speak to the dollars and cents on this, it is certainly this member.

Again, there are mechanisms that other organizations have in place. If we have a commitment to our veterans, we need to demonstrate that commitment, not only by speaking the words and remembering them annually, but by putting the financial dollars and cents behind it as well. These people commit their lives and their families and we must be willing to honour that sacrifice they make.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon.

I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore on introducing this motion and making it the focus of an NDP opposition day. I think that my speech will not deal with the motion at all, because my colleague from Saint-Jean and my colleague from Magog have done a very good job of stating the Bloc's positions on this motion. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion. I only hope that the government will not put the motion in file 13, the round file, but will draw conclusions from it and make something of it.

I would like to remind this House of how the people in government treat our veterans. I will start with the case of one veteran, whom I will name: Armand Pilon. This Montrealer, along with other veterans, has been fighting since 1987 to receive a pension because of his injuries. I will briefly tell the story of Armand, a man over 80 who fought for democracy, freedom, peace and justice in the world.

At the tender age of 17 or 18, Mr. Pilon enlisted in the Canadian Forces. Unfortunately, Mr. Pilon is not a big man. He stands 5 feet, 2 inches tall. He was sent to a training camp in Rimouski, in my colleague's riding, Rimouski—Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. During a night exercise, while skiing, he fell into a hole. A number of his comrades fell on top of him, injuring his back. He sustained injuries to his L1, L2 and L3 vertebrae.

Hon. members will recall that in the early 1940s, many people enlisted to make a decent living while serving their country. Canada had just been through a depression and money was scarce.

My friend Armand is hurt. That still happens nowadays as we saw in the report of the army ombudsman, Mr. Yves Côté. His superiors tell Armand to not report his injuries, to not go to see the doctor, that the nurse will take care of it because it could hurt his career, because perhaps he will not be able to continue in the army and because he may be forced to leave. Armand stays at home, does not say a word, massages himself, takes or is given my grandmother's treatments—I have nothing against them, there were some good ones—because that is the way it was in those days. They rub him with Minard liniment and he is given six to eight weeks' leave, the time needed to get him back on his feet.

I think that the army brass realized that Armand would never be able to go to the front because of the injury that was not reported in his medical file on the advice of his superior.

Armand is sent to the coast of Newfoundland where he will specialize in sending messages in Morse code to aircraft. He will do this work until the war ends. After the war, he is told that because he is not in good shape and he is not very big there is no longer a spot for him. And he is sent home.

Armand returns home and still has back pain. At the time, Armand felt, just as an old hockey player would, that he should keep his injury a secret out of fear that someone would take his place and out of fear that upon his return he would no longer have a job. Armand said to himself that it was better to work with some pains here and there and that they would go away.

Armand returns home. He is in pain all the time and often sees doctors. His son, who is a lawyer, told me that when he would get out of his car he had difficulty standing up and moving. The son had always known him to be like that.

In 1952, Armand was unemployed. He was married and had children to feed. In the early 1950s, he has the opportunity to enlist in the army to work in Saint-Hubert, in the Montreal area, where there is a naval base and an air traffic control service. Armand has experience in that field. He goes there, has a medical exam and nothing is detected. Armand does not say he has a bad back because if he does, he will not get the job. He needs to earn money to take care of his family. He enlists.

After two or three years, he can no longer take the pain and decides to leave. He spent his whole life suffering and using Quebec's health care system. This happens in other provinces as well. Every month, two or three times a month, Armand went to his doctor, a physiotherapist and other specialists to take care of his problem.

It was in 1987 that his real problems began. He applied for compensation, for a disability pension because of his bad back. He submitted his claim and told his story. The Department of Veterans Affairs explained to Armand that there was no evidence that he was injured and therefore it could not pay him benefits. Armand said he hurt himself skiing and told the story that I have just relayed.

Armand decided to appeal, which made matters worse. Anyone who is familiar with the appeal process knows it can be complicated. The first time someone appeals, a group of blue collars and white collars, who have no medical experience, review the file amongst themselves, flip through some documents only to uphold the decision.

Since when can a court of justice—because it is court of justice—take decisions without even giving the person concerned the chance to give his testimony?

That is how Veterans Affairs operates. Armand did not provide testimony and his case was dismissed. The process took two or three years, from 1987 to 1988, from one court of appeal to another.

Finally, in 1988, Armand had all the documentation. He went to see doctors and their reports proved that his L1 vertebrae was fractured, and that it happened when he was young. Armand said that he fell while he was skiing, which could indeed cause this type of fracture. Armand had all the documentation. However, since it had not been reported in 1946, or while Armand was training, he was not be entitled to a disability pension.

Armand is like a bull dog, and by that I mean he does not give up easily. So, he went back. This time, in order to increase the pressure, he appeared before the tribunal, along with his wife and child.

He was represented by a lawyer paid by Veterans Affairs Canada. As the adage goes, don't bite that hand that feeds you. Furthermore, I must wonder if the lawyer was more faithful to his client or the department. Armand appeared before the tribunal and testified. The three commissioners told him that they believed him and that they thought his documentation was valid. No one thought he had lied, and no one thought his wife had lied. The documentation served as evidence and an expert, Dr. Tadros, confirmed that it happened during a skiing accident when Armand was young. Everyone believed him and, yet, the ruling remained unchanged. This is now 2006. The only thing Armand should now do is take civil action against Veterans Affairs Canada.

What is even more amazing, as I was telling my friend, the member for Ahuntsic, is that he had to pay for all the examinations and assessments that the Department of Veterans Affairs requested. Armand had to pay $600 out of his own pocket. A mere $600. That is nothing for a man who served his country and went to war for democracy. It cost him $600, and he is still owed that money. He has never received his $600. He has never been repaid. He is still owed that money.

The last time he went to court was in 2001. I have hope for my friend Armand, because I have requested a meeting so that he can plead his case to the minister. I do not know when this will be over or how it will turn out, but I believe that his only hope is to lay down some more money and launch a civil suit. I know that he will, because he is like a bulldog.

His life and his marriage have been destroyed because of that blasted injury. He has suffered from it for his whole life. In my opinion, it is time to give him the benefit of the doubt. The law says that, but it is not put into practice. When it is difficult to hand down a decision on a case, the court should always decide in favour of the soldier or veteran. But that is not what happens. A court has never handed down a favourable decision based on hearsay or given the soldier or veteran the benefit of the doubt. I have never seen it, even though I have handled a number of cases. Armand's case is typical, and there are many others like it.

Now, I would like to talk about my other friends, the people I affectionately call “my messed-up buddies”. These are people suffering from psychological problems as a result of serving as peacekeepers, young people suffering from post-traumatic stress.

I will name a few of them, to please them and let them know I remember them. Max Steben, I am thinking of you; François Gignac, I am continuing to work for you; Simon Bois, we are going to win; George Dumont, we have to keep on and not give up. There is also Yves Côté, my friend Louise Richard, Joy Anderson of London, Shane Bruha. These are only a few of the young men and women—the same age as my son and daughter—who suffered enormous pressure during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which caused them psychological problems.

Even though it is dinner time, I will tell a story, which I hope will not turn anyone's stomach.

How might we react if we were walking along one day and saw a pregnant woman whose stomach had been cut open like a stuck pig, and whose baby's throat had been slashed. Would we not be left with some mental problems? I would certainly think so.

Considering all the atrocities these young people have witnessed, it is only normal that they have problems and are suffering from PTSD. It is time that the government acknowledge these young people. It is time we all join together to give them what they need.

That is how we treat our veterans. I am not even referring to those who went to war, but those who served on peacekeeping missions. Consider, for instance, Somalia and General Dallaire, who threw himself into the Rideau Canal, here in Ottawa, because of post-traumatic stress problems. General Dallaire is now a senator. He is a very intelligent man. He is a wise man who served in Somalia. Imagine young people who have less experience. Some of them experienced war much earlier. Think of these young people.

What are we doing for our young people who participated in Desert Storm, where they were exposed to toxic gases and depleted uranium? What are we doing for Louise Richard? Since she came back, she has been fighting little by little. Fortunately, yesterday, Yves Côté, the National Defence ombudsman, gave us a reason to hope. He told us to make recommendations, and that those recommendations might make a difference. The Department of National Defence says it somehow lost some medical documents and cannot find them. Were those documents lost accidentally or on purpose? Half of these young people's medical files are missing. They have disappeared.

What are we doing to provide fair treatment to these young people who are fighting for democracy? They are fighting not for Canada, but for democracy around the world, to bring it to Afghanistan and to bring it back to Kosovo, and elsewhere. We have to take care of these children, of my children.

I wish I had two more hours to say all I have to say. It has been exactly seven years since I began meeting these young people every day, and every day, I cry.

I will stop now because I cannot go on any longer. But before I finish, I want to take a deep breath and calm down by reading some lines by a well-known Quebec singer-songwriter, Raymond Lévesque. Had I not shouted earlier, I might have enough of a voice left to sing.

When people learn to love each other
There will be no more misery
My brother

I might add:

When people learn to love each other
There will be no more war
My brother

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Langley B.C.

Conservative

Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a short story because I know I do not have a lot of time. I am going to ask the hon. member to share a different perspective.

My father is 84 years old. He fought in the second world war, as did his brothers, my uncles. My father was a tank instructor. He was in ordinance originally, and was on a motorcycle and worked his way through different parts. He was from Edmonton.

His name is Eddy Warawa. I am very proud of this man. He got married, moved to British Columbia with my mom, and they had four children and I am one of those children. He is a man of great respect. He has worked hard over the years.

It was about four years ago that he had a serious heart operation and he needed to go into rest home. Our family is not a rich family. He is an honest man. He has worked hard all his life and is proud of Canada, as are his brothers. The brothers served in the navy. The whole family made it back from the war. We are very thankful for that.

In these later years, as I have been losing my uncles, who have been passing on, I have now been able to get some of the stories that they did not talk about before.

The point I want to come to is how the Canadian government treated these veterans. I hear first-hand. I am not hearing second-hand or third-hand. It is my father. These are my uncles and they have nothing but praise for the Government of Canada in the way they have been treated as veterans. They are proud of this country and they are proud of the way they have been treated.

My father needed some help. Financially, he was not able to stay in this private rest home after his heart operation. We contacted Veterans Affairs Canada. He is at George Derby. He is receiving wonderful care. He has nothing but praise as a Canadian veterans and the way he has been treated.

I ask the member to look at a different perspective. Do not beat the desk. Tell us what Canada has done for veterans. Tells us good stories, not just the bad because there are both.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard what our colleague just said. Yes, there are some good stories, but there are also some bad ones.

There is something about all this that really strikes me. I will ask a question and I would like someone to answer. How is it that the majority of members, especially those who sat with me on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs—I will not name them, they know who they are—before coming into power, when they sat on this side of the House, accused the Liberals of being a bunch of crooks who did nothing and so forth, and today, now that they are in power, they have changed their story as easily as changing their hat or shirt? Previously, they told a tale similar to mine.

Let us be serious. It is not a question of defending one position or another. We must treat younger and older veterans equally. That is what we have to do.

I will talk about the case of another friend. I will give his name because I like to give people's names. That way you can always check. Vic Smart is a veteran from Rivière-des-Mille-îles, in my riding. At a party like the one I am going to hold this weekend to pay tribute to the deceased, Vic told me: “The young soldiers of today are no longer strong between the ears. In my time, we were tough and things went well. We did not suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome”. I did not reply. His wife said to him: “Vic, remember that when you went to war you were a good family man. When you came back, you treated your illness with lots of gin. You use gin to cope with your post-traumatic stress syndrome”.

The father of the member for Laval was in the army. She told me about the horrors experienced by veterans. Unfortunately, they would not complain. The “old guys” were not crybabies. Our fathers and grandfathers were not crybabies. It was normal, there was nothing to it. They were satisfied with what little they had. Those days are long gone. We must look after our young and old veterans, those of every age. We must do everything possible for them.

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion, the emotion, and the sincerity of the presentation by the member. He speaks as though he has experienced or has personal knowledge of some of these people who are out there trying to live their lives and finding it difficult. These people need some help. Sometimes getting help is very difficult. It is very expensive because what they need is some health care and an ability to look after themselves and to get housing, et cetera.

In the member's experience with veterans, and he has obviously had quite a bit, what would be the first priority in terms of what we should be putting in place that is not there now?

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

November 2nd, 2006 / 5:35 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor just sparked a long debate. The role of the ombudsman is to protect citizens. He should report to the House, and not to the minister.

How could an ombudsman who reports to the minister remain objective? As the saying goes, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Consider, for example, André Marin, the former ombudsman who submitted a fine report sometime around June 2003 regarding that infamous insurance, SISIP. His recommendations were so good that the Liberal government of the day told Mr. Marin that it would not renew his contract on July 5, 2005.

An ombudsman must report to the House, otherwise, it would be useless. The opposite would be impossible. We could not do any worse.

I do not lay blame on the ombudsmen. I would do the same thing. In order to save my job, I would not bite the hand that feeds me. It would mean one's livelihood.

The Public Protector Act has existed in Quebec for over 30 years and it is working well.

According to the presentation given by Mr. Marin yesterday before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, legislation exists similar to that of Quebec and it is working well. He said that New Brunswick has similar legislation that works and that produces good results. Manitoba has legislation regarding ombudsmen that works well and produces good results. It is going very well in British Columbia, as well, and they are seeing good results.

What is Ottawa waiting for? The messiah?

Opposition Motion--Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It being 5:39 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 7 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Notice of MotionWays and MeansGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay upon the table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.

I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.