House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was infrastructure.
Canadian Content in Public Transportation ProjectsPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, but the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
When Motion No. 183 returns to the House, there will be eight and a half minutes left for the hon. member.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pose a question to the government with regard to the veterans independence program and in particular, about a promise made by the government when it was in opposition to extend the benefits of the veterans independence program to all Canadian veterans, second world war and Korean veterans. The Conservatives said that this would be done upon taking government.
I will refer a number of times to Joyce Carter. Joyce's name is familiar in this chamber. She is a very special Canadian, a lady who is a war bride, the widow of a second world war veteran. She has done an incredible amount of work on this issue. She is from Sampsonville in Richmond County on Cape Breton Island. She has done a tremendous job on this and we hold her in high regard. She is the bearer of several pieces of correspondence from members across over the years and I certainly will refer to them. Sue King is another lady who has done a lot of work in trying to elicit some action from the government. Certainly the member for Kitchener Centre has been a strong advocate of this program as well.
I will go through a brief chronology. The Conservative Party of Canada released a policy document on March 19, 2005, that a Conservative government of Canada would immediately extend VIP benefits to widows and veterans from the second world war and the Korean war. The current Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the official opposition, wrote a letter, bearing his own signature, to Mrs. Joyce Carter, in which he reiterated that promise to immediately extend those benefits upon taking government.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
No, it was not done.
On October 4, 2005 there was another piece of correspondence from the current Prime Minister, signed by his assistant yet off the desk of the current Prime Minister, to immediately implement that. The parliamentary secretary signed a piece of correspondence on October 28, 2005.
After the 2006 election, the Conservatives took office. Being the benevolent guys we are on this side, we gave them six months to get their legs under them. I asked the minister a question in the House on June 9, 2006. His reply was, “very soon”. The Conservatives stepped away from “immediately” and went to “very soon”.
On February 12, 2007 in committee when pushed on the question, the minister said, “We are committed”. He was even stepping back from “very soon” which was back from “immediately” to “we are committed”.
A year and a half later on June 12, 2007, I posed a question to the minister, to which the reply was, “We will get the job done”. A couple of days later, the leader of the official opposition asked a question of the Prime Minister, who said, “We intend to act”. This was over a year and a half later.
On October 26, 2007 I asked the minister again. I continued to push this on behalf of the people expecting this action from the government. His response, “We are going to get it fixed”.
It is over two years. We are way past “immediately”. A written promise was made by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. There is an expectation out there. There is absolutely no need for the unfairness, the hypocrisy of stepping away from this promise to the veterans. It is long past time for action. It was “immediately”, which became “very soon”. All those quantifiers--
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, what has been committed is in fact an act of hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal Party. that is not the question we were given.
I will answer the question we were given, which was with regard to the government's record on supporting our veterans, and particularly the announcement of an ex-gratia payment related to agent orange testing at CFB Gagetown in the summers of 1966 and 1967.
Before I do so, I will set the record straight for all members. Agent orange testing was not conducted at CFB Gagetown for 28 years, as the hon. member suggested in the question he really should have asked. It occurred in the summers of 1966 and 1967, for a total of seven days.
He further claims in his question, which he should have asked, that 150,000 veterans were exposed to herbicide testing. It would indeed be interesting to learn how the hon. member came to that conclusion.
However, before we are so informed, let me address the proud record of achievement the government has established in meeting its commitment to our veterans.
In our first two budgets we increased spending in veterans programs and services by over $523 million, or half a billion dollars more than the Liberals spent in their last budget.
We have introduced the veterans bill of rights.
We have introduced the new veterans charter to meet the immediate and long-term needs of soldiers transitioning to civilian life.
We have announced an $18.5 million investment in the veterans job placement program.
We are committed to paying $9 million a year to set up five more operational stress injury clinics.
We have appointed the first veterans ombudsman, Colonel Patrick Stogran, a decorated veteran and head of Canada's first deployment to Afghanistan.
We are committed to paying $1 million a year to support the families of Canadian Forces members and an additional $13.7 million to improve veterans services with respect to the standards set out in the veterans bill of rights.
Those are our commitments and accomplishments.
It is one of accountability to those who have served and those who continue to serve our country today.
Speaking of accountability, we have kept our promise to respond to concerns raised by members of our military, veterans and area residents about the possible health effects of herbicides used at CFB Gagetown.
Unlike previous governments, which sidestepped or ignored this issue for years, I am proud of the remarkable leadership the Minister of Veterans Affairs has demonstrated on this file.
In September, after research led by the Department of National Defence, our government announced a one-time, tax-free ex gratia payment of $20,000 to eligible recipients connected to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including agent orange, at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967. We have started delivering on that commitment and cheques are starting to go out. That is five weeks after the announcement.
Eligible recipients could include those who worked or trained at CFB Gagetown or who lived in a community any part of which was within five kilometres of the base when agent orange was tested in 1966 and 1967.
This has been a complex file that has demanded patience, resolve, understanding and commitment. The government has responded with fairness and compassion, with a plan that is principled and transparent and that reflects our open and transparent government.
We are committed to serving and protecting those who served and continue to serve and protect us. That is the right thing to do and our solution for the agent orange file is the right thing to do. As a veteran, I appreciate that.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is absolutely right. I did ask a question in the House that day on agent orange, but the supplemental question was on the veterans independence program. What I tried to do was show an obvious link that the government had continued to break its promises to our veterans.
With regard to the veterans independence program, I think the cupboard is bare over there. I think the government is void and has nothing to invest in this.
Very specifically, will there be something in the budget on the 26th to help the veterans independence program? Can we given Joyce Carter any kind of hope?
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, were I to reveal what was in the budget, I would be in a lot of trouble and I cannot do that. What I will say is our government has clearly demonstrated a deep commitment to our veterans and their families.
We promised to not only improve services and benefits for veterans, but to introduce a veterans bill of rights, and we have done that. Funding for veterans programs and services has been increased by over $523 million in our first two budgets, half a billion dollars more than what the Liberals spent in their last budget. The government appointed Canada's first Ombudsman for Veterans.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has demonstrated great leadership in addressing and responding to issues raised by members of the Canadian Forces, veterans and area residents about the possible health effects of unregistered U.S. military herbicides tested at CFB Gagetown forty years ago.
After an extensive review, our government has announced a one time tax-free payment of $20,000 for eligible recipients connected to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including agent orange, at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967. In just over one month we have begun to get the cheques out. We got—
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, on February 11, I asked the Minister of Transport, the minister responsible for Canada Post, why the government was allowing the elimination of individual mail delivery in rural Canada.
It was the Minister of Transport's memo of December 13, 2006, that, instead of forcing Canada Post to hold the line in terms of individual mailboxes, seems to have given the impetus to intimidate rural Canadians into giving up their right of service, a right they have had since the horse and buggy days.
This review by Canada Post will cost $600 million nationwide over five years. What is this review for? Is it to anger rural Canadians? This amount of money over six years is criminal. This issue could have been solved at the local level between the individual mailbox holder, the driver and the postmaster. However, we have this national program that is angering and frustrating rural Canadians and intimidating them to move toward community mailboxes.
There is no question that we will hear from either the minister or the parliamentary secretary about the safety issue. Yes, we, too, are concerned about the safety of rural drivers, but when I asked the people in Prince Edward Island how many safety concerns they had about drivers, there was but one.
What would happen if we turned over the management of school buses or garbage trucks to Canada Post? Would they be forced off the road too?
Other approaches could have been taken rather than the approach being taken by Canada Post. The point is that there are other ways. What is wrong with the people in the minister's office? Can they not find a sensible way to solve this problem and maintain rural delivery?
The result of this review is leading to the elimination of individual delivery. We know that for sure. I can show members road after road where 20% to 50% of residents are not getting individual delivery. We also know that more cars are being forced onto the road with the greenhouse gas impact. We know there will be litter from these community mailboxes. We know there is greater risk to human safety by increasing the potential for accidents. One box on Rustico Road in Milton holds the mail for 31 people, which means that 31 cars are now on the road where previously there was one. What do those individuals have to do? They must turn around somewhere and go back, increasing the risk of accidents.
What about congestion at these boxes? People stop on both sides of the road. It is an accident waiting to happen. What about human safety? These boxes are not located in urban Canada where there are street lights beside the boxes. These boxes are sitting on dark, rural roads where people sometimes have to get their mail after dark. What about rural safety?
It is time the minister and the government were concerned about rural Canada and started looking after the interests of rural Canadians.
I have one other point to make. The intimidation should not be allowed to happen. The minister needs to act.
Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to comment on rural mail delivery, because the Conservative government is the only government that stands up for rural Canadians.
Not only is this government supportive of rural Canadians, but we understand the importance of ensuring that they receive quality rural mail service. It is very important to the people who live in rural Canada.
In December 2006, during the first year after being elected, the government acted. The government directed Canada Post to develop and implement an operational plan to restore and maintain mail delivery to rural roadside mailboxes.
The government expects Canada Post to do its very best in relation to achieving this goal, while taking into consideration the health and safety of employees and respecting all applicable laws. Canada Post did act and is acting as best it can in the best interests of Canadians to make sure this job gets done.
There are approximately 843,000 rural mailboxes, representing about 6% of Canada Post's 14 million delivery points. Canada Post has implemented a plan to review the safety of delivery to every rural mailbox.
The rural mail safety review is a result of the health and safety concerns expressed by postal employees delivering mail to roadside mailboxes.
Canada Post, like all federal employers, has legal obligations under both the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. These are mandatory obligations to ensure that employees have safe working conditions. The safety review responded to more than 40 health and safety related rulings by Labour Canada and more than 1,400 complaints by employees.
In recent weeks, Canada Post has responded to the concerns of the hon. member for Malpeque by meeting him in his riding. This also included a tour of the rural routes being assessed and a demonstration of the traffic safety assessment tool. The member knows full well what is going on in his riding.
This tool was developed for Canada Post by independent traffic safety experts. The safety review incorporates a community outreach process, whereby all affected customers are contacted directly. That is right: Canada Post contacts directly every single customer who is affected by this. Wherever possible, delivery is maintained.
However, where a box is determined to be unsafe by this method, the first objective is to work with the customer to move it to a safe location. In the event this is not possible, customers are given a choice between delivery to a nearby community mailbox that is deemed safe or a free box in the local post office.
In closing, I would like to also point out that Canada Post is working with the Prince Edward Island transportation department in the member's own province to ensure that community mailbox sites meet the province's standards for safety.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that I do indeed know my riding and I know Canada Post is closing down post offices for postal boxes. I know that for sure.
The parliamentary secretary used a number: 1,400 employee complaints. I have applied under access to information for those complaints. I already know this: about 800 of those complaints are not for safety at the mailboxes but for ergonomic damage when the employee's arm gets tired from reaching out the passenger side window. This is obviously the way that the parliamentary secretary is like many of the others in getting his talking points from the PMO and using figures to try to bamboozle the public.
The bottom line is this: we are losing individual rural mailbox delivery. We want it back. There was a motion passed in this Parliament to say that we should have it. It passed a while ago. It is the minister's responsibility to live up to that motion, which means individual rural mail delivery. We want the minister to see that it is done.
February 14th, 2008 / 6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House respect the laws of the country, both the Canada Labour Code and the Criminal Code, and indeed, they both apply in this particular instance.
Also, there is a moratorium on rural post office closures. The member is wrong in what he says about that. I am sure he misspoke.
This particular issue, however, is not just over two years old. It is older than that. The problem existed when the member was a member of the government and a minister. If he wanted to make some changes at that time, changes that he thought were possible, then he should have done it at that time.
We on the Conservative government side have inherited a Liberal mess in many areas.
However, let me be clear. Mail carriers have died delivering mail in certain instances. We on this side of the House have to make sure that Canadians stay safe and that rural mail delivery is going to be restored and maintained wherever possible. We are doing just that.
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)