House of Commons Hansard #88 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was priority.

Topics

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Resuming debate.

Accordingly, I invite the member for Saint-Jean to use his five-minute right of reply.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2 p.m.

NDP

Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the arguments that government members made against Bill C-568. I would remind members that one of the objectives of this bill is to give veterans priority access to beds in community facilities, which make up two-thirds of the 9,000 beds currently occupied.

The Conservatives' main concern is that this will create unnecessary red tape. I do not understand this argument, since the government actually would rather avoid paying a bill that it could pass along to the provinces. This bill would not do away with the categories of veterans for all of the regulations. It would only do so for part III of the Veterans Health Care Regulations, which has to do with long-term health care.

Giving veterans priority access to beds will not create red tape. It will certainly cost some more money, but our veterans deserve to have all of us share the costs of the consequences of the missions we sent them on.

We are simply asking the federal government to change its model of classes of veterans and implement a system in which those who served before and after 1953 have access to the same quality care. Today we have to make a decision about access to beds for the veterans we are so proud of.

We know that there are already two problems with beds in community facilities: wait lists and staff turnover, which is directly related to the orderlies' wages. With the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital transfer, the orderlies' salaries will decrease by 15% to 34%. How can we avoid staff turnover with these kinds of wage cuts?

We often talk about two categories of modern veterans: those who served before 1953 and those who served after. In fact, there are two subcategories of modern veterans: those who served before and those who served after the new veterans charter took effect on April 1, 2006.

I would like to talk about how modern veterans are not being given the benefit of the doubt. If a traditional veteran has a service-related injury, there is automatically a presumption that there is a connection between that veteran's service and the need for long-term care. However, modern veterans—even if they received a disability pension before 2006 or a disability award after 2006—have to prove that there is a connection between their service and the need for long-term care. That is impossible, in practical terms.

It is impossible because, at a certain age, it is no longer realistic to be able to make a distinction between the natural consequences of aging and the consequences directly related to military service, even if the needs are legitimately related to the veteran's service. New Zealand veterans were facing the same unfair situation, so the government created a single category for veterans once they turn 75.

The new veterans charter was passed in 2006 with the promise that it would be a living document. During consultations about my bill, I heard veterans complain about some of the new provisions. One of the most striking examples that was brought to my attention was the fact that before the new charter, injured veterans received a disability pension. Now that the new charter has been implemented, they receive a lump sum payment that works out to far less money.

In conclusion, I would like the government and the Conservative members to remember that voting against Bill C-568 will neither address the problem of long-term health care for veterans nor make it go away.

On the contrary, as the Canadian population in general ages over the coming decades, there will be even more pressure on health care systems, which the provinces are responsible for. The shortage of long-term beds for veterans will get even worse, and that is something we will have to talk about again someday.

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Former Canadian Forces Members ActPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 28, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Just before we adjourn, the long weekend ahead is named for a former sovereign, who established this place in 1859. A few years afterward, it became the nation's capital. I hope all members enjoy a productive and safe week.

It now being 2:08, this House stands adjourned until Monday, May 26, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:08 p.m.)