House of Commons Hansard #64 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I fail to see the relevance in that whole diatribe from our colleague across the way.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I thank the hon. member, but I think that is going to debate. We will proceed with scheduled debate.
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise here today to speak in support of the bill.
I am actually quite shocked that the government will not be supporting its own private member in this particular situation, given the nature of the bill to potentially save lives across this country.
Certainly on this side of the House, we value life, and we value the ability of individuals to help people in certain situations where this an emergency. I can speak to this on a first-hand basis, given that I spent 30 and a half years as a firefighter. I am trained in first aid. I am trained in CPR. I am trained in AED. I have seen first-hand the impact that training can have, not just with myself, but with my colleagues, and several thousands of colleagues across the country, who are trained to act, in particular those who are not paid professionals and are there when people need them.
Therefore, to spend 10 minutes of one's speech talking about the implementation of the budget, which I think we are dealing with tomorrow, I find a little disingenuous. I certainly understand my colleague for Cariboo—Prince George standing on a point of order, particularly when the parliamentary secretary was focused on his government's middle-class tax fraud. However, I will say that given the experience I have had, that is why I rise in support of this private member's bill.
I will give members an example of how helping people in an emergency situation is beneficial. Just after I was elected to Parliament, I think it was my second trip to Ottawa, I was heading home back to Barrie—Innisfil. When driving down Bank Street, there was someone who was hit by a car. My medical gloves are never too far away, and I stopped, as one would expect, to help this individual until the fire department and ambulance showed up. This is really what the bill is speaking to. I will also say that in Barrie—Innisfil, we have a tremendous amount of experience with respect to AEDs.
I want to spend a bit of time talking about Chase McEachern. For those in this country who do not know Chase, he was a hockey player from Barrie and a prolific goal scorer. At the age of five, he scored 130 goals while he played for the Vaughan Kings Minor Pewee AAA team in the Greater Toronto Hockey League.
In 2005, at the age of 11, after being injured while playing a pick-up football game at school, he went to the emergency room where doctors found that Chase's heart was beating up to 150 times a minute. He went by air ambulance to The Hospital for Sick Children and underwent a cardioversion, in which doctors returned his heart rhythm back to normal with a small electric pulse. Chase was able to return to school and continue playing hockey, but this time under doctor's orders while wearing a heart monitor.
It was at that time that Chase started a campaign to make AEDs mandatory at hockey arenas and schools everywhere, because he realized that heart problems did not just affect older people. Chase, in fact, wrote to Don Cherry. He got Don Cherry involved by writing the hockey commentator a letter asking for his support, and, in what has become legend, Don Cherry actually brought it up on Coach's Corner.
Sadly, before the campaign had a chance to fly, Chase collapsed during gym class and was rushed to hospital where it was discovered that he had suffered severe brain damage due to a lack of oxygen. After a heartbreaking six days on respirator, his parents made the decision to take him off of it.
As a result of that tragedy, the Chase McEachern Memorial Fund aims to have an automatic external defibrillator or AED in public places, such as community centres and arenas. It is a legacy from this tragedy that Chase's parents, his father John, have carried on in Chase's memory.
Since 2006, over 12,000 AEDs have been put in these places because of the Chase McEachern memorial fund. In fact, just two weeks ago, on May 16, I attended a CPR and AED training session in Barrie at Georgian Chevrolet that acted as not only a free training session that was put on by Mr. McEachern and others, but also to benefit the Chase McEachern memorial fund. This Sunday, there is golf tournament at Angus Glen to help support the fund.
Imagine an 11-year old boy having that great an impact on our country and having 12,000 AEDs in place.
I also want to highlight as well the significance of the Simcoe County public access defibrillator training. Since 2006, Simcoe County paramedics have trained 11,485 people in first aid, CPR, and the use of an AED since the start of our program, with 1,307 people trained in 2015. Fourteen public access defibrillator saves have been made since the program started. In 2015, the latest statistics show that three people have been saved by public access defibrillators.
To suggest that this is not a priority is misguided for the government. I heard the hon. parliamentary secretary speak about tax credits and the fact that the government would not support them. When we look at some of the impacts that tax credits have had, particularly on the issue of life safety like this, there should be no doubt that this is something the government should consider. We on this side of the House support it.
One of the things I want to focus on with respect to tax credits and the significance they have to people in our country is the fitness tax credit. I do not think any of us would be against this. The fact is that the health and fitness of our children is paramount to the future of our country.
From 2006 to 2015, $1.13 billion in tax credits have been claimed by Canadian families just with the fitness tax credit alone. That has meant that middle-class families have been able to put their kids into sports and receive tax credits. I have spoken about this before in the House, but in my situation, with four children, the tax credit has made it much easier for me to put my kids into fitness activities. On the arts side, between 2011 and 2015 tax years, Canadians have claimed $190 million in credits. These credits have been wiped out, yet they directly impacted Canadian families.
This private member's bill would not only impact Canadian families and potentially save some lives, but it would be an incentive for people to train in first aid, CPR, and the use of automatic external defibrillators.
In some of the talks we have had, it is my understanding that right now only 18% of Canadians are current in their first aid and CPR training. If there is any way at all that they can be given an incentive to continue on with that training, I do not see that as an issue.
The bottom line is that we want people to act in the event of an emergency. We want them to be able to render assistance until first responders are able to arrive. Oftentimes in first aid and CPR training we talk about the golden hour, the golden 15 minutes, where one can actually make a difference in somebody's life by starting CPR and first aid.
I am proud to say that just yesterday, the first outside automatic external defibrillator was delivered in Barrie, Ontario.
It is so important that people not only know first aid or CPR, but it is so important to give them the ability to train on AEDs. This private member's bill would do that. We on this side of the House are very supportive of the bill. I thank the member for Cambridge for bringing it forward.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has three minutes left for today.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I suppose that with a bit of luck, I will have the other seven minutes another day. For now, I will focus on just one element of the bill that I find interesting. I will be asking the member for some clarifications once the bill goes to committee.
The bill provides a $200 tax credit for people, and their dependents, who are eligible and want to take first aid training. I would like the member to clarify whether this tax credit is indexed based on the number of children, because that does not appear to be the case in the bill. If I have two dependent children, are we talking about $200 or $600?
This needs to be clarified, so that people who have a large family can make sure all of their children take a first aid course. For instance, a friend of mine, Jamie Bouchard, has eight children. Clearly, with $200, she cannot expect the same results as someone who lives alone. I think the member needs to clarify that when the time comes to study the bill in committee.
It is extremely important for children to take first aid courses, even when they are very young. I have had the opportunity to work as an emergency room and ICU nurse, and I know how vital it can be for children to know what to do in an emergency, particularly when it is their mother or father who is in trouble and they have to intervene.
Finally, some paramedic friends shared some videos with me of a three-year-old child who, in a simulation, managed to place his mother in the recovery position and call emergency services. It can be very useful to teach even very young children basic first aid techniques.
Could my colleague clarify whether the bill gives a tax credit based on the number of dependants? Is it $200 per person taking the courses or $200 for all of the courses taken by that person and his or her children?
I have seven minutes left and I hope to be able to continue my speech in the second hour of debate.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
As mentioned, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will have seven minutes to finish her speech when the House resumes debate on this bill.
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.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand tonight to speak to an issue that I asked the Minister of Democratic Institutions about a few weeks ago during question period. Specifically, I asked whether the government would support my private member's bill, the candidate gender equity act, when it comes up for a vote at second reading.
Before getting to my questions for the government, let me start by going over the details of Bill C-237 and the reasons why I put it forward.
While Canadians felt pride when the Prime Minister announced that his cabinet would be Canada's first gender-balanced cabinet, we really cannot lose sight of the fact that women still only hold 26% of the seats in the House of Commons, and this is the closest we have ever been to gender parity. This means that almost three out of every four MPs are male and Canada now ranks 61st in the world when it comes to the proportion of women in our national legislature, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. While we were ranked 21st in 1991, we have fallen behind countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and El Salvador so it is a poor record.
This is more than mere statistics. These numbers mean something. The politics of presence is essential for any well-functioning democracy, and the decisions made in this place directly reflect the perspectives of those who propose and vote on decisions in the House. If our Parliament were equal and more diverse, our democracy would better represent Canadians and their aspirations.
That is why I put forward the candidate gender equity act. Academic research, some that I have actually published myself, shows that women face significant barriers and unfair biases in the processes used by political parties to select their candidates. It is not the voters that are the problem, it is the parties that are the problem. That is what Bill C-237 would do. It would incentivize parties to recruit more women candidates and move toward parity in their candidate lists. We would incentivize this by using the existing public subsidies that parties receive from taxpayers. A party's post-election rebate would be gradually reduced if it did not have at least 45% women candidates, and then of course the subsidy would be further reduced as the party moved further from parity.
I was disheartened that the minister said that the current government would oppose the bill, at least now. However, today, where the government has accepted our opposition day motion, our suggestions for how we might change the committee studying electoral reform, I am perhaps hopeful that maybe the minister will also change her position on the bill.
I would like to outline a few things.
First, the bill that I put forward was formulated by experts and drawn from laws from other countries. For example, Ireland passed a similar law in 2012 and under this law, the Irish increased the number of women candidates in the election by 90%, and believe it or not, increased the number of women in their legislature by 40% with just one year of this single law.
Second, this law could work under any voting system. We will be changing our electoral system here, from what I understand. This law would work under any voting system, so it would not constrain us in that sense.
Third, what is most important is that this would not be a quota. I have heard from this side of the House and the other side of the House that it is a quota. It is not a quota, and in fact, in no way would it interfere with the internal workings of the parties.
This is an important measure and I look forward to the response from the other side.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts with the member in regard to his private member's bill, and specifically to his question. It is important that we recognize that gender equity is laudable and a necessary objective. It is one which we support wholeheartedly. In working toward this goal, however, we must select the most effective way to achieve it.
As all members know, the government has, with other parties of the House, formed a special committee. The member actually just made reference to that committee. It is mandated to examine a variety of reforms to our electoral system, such as preferential ballots and proportional representation. In other words, Canada's electoral system for the next election is still unknown. Under these circumstances, it is premature to impose a legislative quota, at best designed for the first past the post system.
With respect to the bill, it limits both the independence of parties with respect to their choice of candidates, but also with respect to their position on gender equity. For example, an all woman party aimed at increasing gender representation would be penalized and would have to limit opportunities for potential candidates.
I have had the opportunity to serve on election readiness committees and to get involved in many different capacities within my own political party. There are a number of ideas there. At the end of the day, what we want to see is gender parity. A lot of it depends on leadership. We have seen significant gains through our current Prime Minister, and we will continue to grow in this area. I was very proud of the fact, as I believe all Canadians were, that we had gender parity within the federal cabinet. It was the first time, and it has been acknowledged around the world.
There have been some very significant gains. From a very personal point of view, in the last provincial election my daughter, who is 24 years old, was elected to the Manitoba legislature. The Manitoba Liberal caucus, albeit small, is made up of three MLAs, two female members and Jon Gerrard. I know from personal experiences in the past we have had some very strong personalities of the female gender involved in politics.
I do not think the bill is appropriate at this stage, when we reflect on the resolution that we supported today looking at electoral reform, which I am anticipating will be passed and hopefully we will see a very exciting number of months ahead of us. I would really encourage the member to do what he can in terms of advocating what he believes is important not only to himself but to his constituents and the broader community, recognizing that he has brought forward a bill that might already be taken by some of these initiatives into potential consideration. I do not want to prejudge what the committee is going to be looking at, or the scope per se, but there are some objectives. For example, there were five listed off by the government.
There is an opportunity for the member to further explore his idea. At this point we are just not convinced that the bill he is referring to is the best tool to do that.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, numbers do not lie. Only a quarter of the seats in the House are filled by women. That is the most we have ever had. We are 61st in the world.
I put forward a bill. The most important thing for private member's bills is to get them to committee. That is what I am asking for, a vote to get it to committee.
I am happy to build concessions into the bill. For example, in Ireland, these kinds of measures have been phased in. As I have said, I have asked the House of Commons law office whether the bill is constitutional. It indeed meets all the requirements of the constitution. It does not interfere with the way parties select candidates. In fact, it is the only way forward in the House.
Therefore, the member is either for the bill and for gender equity or he is against gender equity measures. How will the Prime Minister be a feminist if he does not put forward gender equity measures?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a fair assessment to say that, if individuals are for gender equity, they have to support this bill.
I do not think the Prime Minister needs to take a gender equity lesson from the member, given the many different things he has done in a relatively short time span to promote and encourage gender equity, as I stated, right from cabinet itself, which is a significant achievement in its own right.
The bill would create financial and political incentives to refuse the nomination of qualified candidates on the basis of gender. We recognize that. In that respect, the bill would limit the independence of parties with respect to their choice of candidates but also with respect to their position on gender equity. For example, an all-woman party, as I indicated earlier, aimed at increasing gender representation would be penalized, and it limits opportunities for other potential candidates.
A second concern we have with the bill relates to transgender candidates, as there is no mention of non-binary—
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, everybody loves the underdog. Think of great movies, like Rocky, Rudy, or Will Smith's, The Pursuit of Happyness, or think of the great legends of David and Goliath or Robin Hood.
Speaking of Robin Hood, our Liberal opponents are always telling us that we need big government, to take from the rich and give to the poor. Why is it that big government always seems to send the money in the opposite direction? Think about the Bombardier bailout, which would take a billion middle-class tax dollars and give them to a company of billionaire owners and millionaire executives; or there is Ontario's so-called Green Energy Act, which forces low-income families to pay inflated electricity bills that subsidize millionaire insiders with green energy contracts; and there are the government-mandated taxi cartels that allow millionaire taxi plate owners to rip off cab drivers and their passengers.
Those who have the money to lobby government and game the rules of government always win with bigger government. The underdogs, by contrast, have to fight their own battles. We need to fight alongside them. That means fighting for immigrants who are qualified engineers and doctors working minimum-wage jobs because bureaucracy prevents them from getting a licence to practise their profession.
It means fighting for small businesses that pay too much tax. It means fighting for lower taxes for low-income people, so that work always pays more than welfare. Speaking of welfare, we should get tough on welfare for the incompetent millionaire CEO who is back at the trough seeking yet another bailout or handout from working-class taxpayers.
This is what it means to stand up for the underdog, for the people who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules. They too often are forced to shoulder the burdens of wealthy insiders who take advantage of big government to profit and enrich themselves.
I ask today if the government will stand on the side of Canada's underdogs by keeping its promise to lower taxes for small businesses from 10.5% to 9%, allowing those businesses to create jobs and opportunity for all Canadians.
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very surprising statement. I have a lot of respect for the hon. member, and he knows it, but that is a government that is working for middle-class and Canadian families.
He talks about stepping up. We are stepping up for nine million Canadians by reducing their taxes and we are stepping up for Canadian families with the Canada child benefit. We are helping nine families out of 10 in this country and lifting 300,000 children out of poverty. Really, this is a government that is stepping up for Canadian families and the Canadian middle class.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his dedication to the advancement of small businesses in his riding and across our country. He has made a number of speeches in this House to which we have listened carefully.
We are all committed in this House to supporting small businesses. We have shown it on many occasions. As he said himself, "to create an awesome company it takes treasure and talent, but young companies often do not have the treasure to pay for the talent, so they use stock options."
Our government has always stated and understood that stock options are a legitimate and valuable form of compensation for many Canadian start-ups. The member will know that our government is committed to grow this sector across all sectors of the economy. We will ensure that innovators and start-ups maintain the ability to use this form of compensation.
Our government is committed to consulting with Canadians and listening to them. This issue was one I discussed with many Canadians, particularly entrepreneurs, over the course of the pre-budget consultations I undertook with the Minister of Finance earlier this year. I recall in particular a discussion that we had in Quebec City with young entrepreneurs who just started start-ups and yes, we listened to them. We listened to Canadians.
We criss-crossed the country asking Canadians to tell us what the government could do to help the middle class. We met with aboriginal leaders, business leaders, and leaders in the arts and culture. We listened to Canadians and engaged in discussions to find practical solutions to the problems they face.
The consultations continued online and were enormously successful. We did something that the previous government did a few times. We consulted Canadians.
We got a strong response online from people who wanted to comment. Over 300,000 people visited our site, and we collected over 5,200 separate comments from Canadian taxpayers and groups of Canadians.
Throughout the consultations, Canadians confirmed that they wanted their government to strengthen the middle class and help workers aspiring to join it. I am proud of what we have to offer in budget 2016, and I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to talk about these measures.
With respect to small business, for small businesses to flourish, the economy has to grow, and customers have to buy their products.
In closing, we are helping the backbone of the Canadian economy to prosper by investing in growth, supporting the middle class, strengthening the economy, and putting more money back into Canadians' pockets.
Budget 2016 does more than just offer immediate assistance to Canada's middle class. It seeks to build an economy that is good for everyone today and tomorrow.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member is willing to take my suggestions on treating the underdogs of society with more fairness, and so I have some suggestions I will make very pointedly: Stop giving welfare and bailouts for the super rich. Right now the government is considering giving $1 billion to a company of billionaire owners and millionaire shareholders at the expense of working-class people.
The government is considering, in conjunction with the provinces, convoluted climate change policies that will take money out of the pockets of everyday consumers and enrich Liberal insiders, like it did in Ontario where Liberals have made fortunes on the backs of the working poor.
The government is considering other bureaucratic schemes that take from working families and give to the super elite.
Will the member work with me to put an end to the insider economy so that we can get back to the free market economy?
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised and disappointed to hear an hon. member suggest that we should not support the aerospace industry in our country. Particularly for members from Quebec who think about Bombardier and the 60,000-plus people who work for Bombardier, it is quite shocking to hear that from a member who understands business and what business is doing for the country.
Let me reassure the member that if he wants to work with us to find measures to support middle-class families, he should think about the ones we supported by reducing taxes. That should be music to his ears. We reduced taxes for nine million Canadians. I would expect a member like him to be very pleased that we reduced taxes and put more money in the pockets of Canadians. He should think about what we did with the Canada child benefit and be very happy that we are supporting families, putting more money in the pockets of families. Families in Canada will receive, on average, $2,300 more.
If the member wants to work with me to support Canadian families, Canadian business, and the middle class, we will work with him any time.
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in the adjournment debate, or what is known in parliamentary jargon as the late show, for the first time. I will learn how this works in the next few minutes.
I am also pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton, is here. I hope that she will be able to give me some answers.
I am here to share some concerns that have been expressed by Canadians in general, not just veterans. The House will understand why. Recently, the minister introduced new financial benefits for veterans under Bill C-12, which unfortunately no longer exists because those measures have now been inserted into omnibus Bill C-15.
These amendments include increasing the disability award, expanding access to the higher grades of the permanent impairment allowance, and increasing the earnings loss benefit. Veterans tell me that these improved benefits are worthwhile, but that the government could have made a better decision. For example, veterans would have liked the government to invest more in mental health clinics, provide more assistance for families, such as military spouses, and improve help for the transition from military to civilian life.
This evening, I will talk about the fact that the disability award was increased and that the increase is retroactive to 2006. We are talking about approximately $3.7 billion that will be spent on these retroactive payments. This expenditure is highly questionable.
I am going to tell a story that explains why I think that we need to ask questions in that regard. One of my constituents came to see me. She earns about $100,000 a year. She was a soldier and she has hearing problems. Although she will not do so, if she were to apply for a disability award from the Department of Veterans Affairs, she would be eligible to receive a cheque for between $5,000 and $10,000. I think that everyone here will agree that this person, who earns $100,000 a year, does not need that money and that her loss of hearing does not prevent her from working.
Imagine how many cases like that there are in Canada and how many people, in the coming months, without thinking of their fellow soldiers, will apply for disability awards for physical injuries that do not necessarily prevent them from working. Under the law, they are eligible for that money and it is good that the government is trying to help them. However, when it comes to veterans, there are urgent needs in many other areas, including those I talked about earlier.
My question for my colleague from Kanata—Carleton is very simple. According to her estimates, how much money will be paid out retroactively to 2006 for hearing-related injuries?
Karen McCrimmon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased my colleague opposite called for an adjournment debate on this topic. Any opportunity I get to explain what the government is doing to support our veterans is good with me.
I understand there are a lot of issues out there about the financial security for our men and women who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have had stakeholder meetings, policy group meetings, and advisory group meetings. What I keep hearing is news to my ears. It is wonderful. People are saying that there are gaps problems. They want us to look after ill and injured veterans. They want us to look after the families of ill and injured veterans.
In the budget plan 2016, we are providing access to very critical benefits that will improve the long-term financial stability, security, and independence of ill and injured veterans and their families. We announced an enhanced access to the permanent impairment allowance and an increase to the disability award in line with what was asked by the Veterans Ombudsman. We are taking advice from right across the spectrum. These people have been talking to veterans for years, to the ombudsmen for the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans.
We will ensure that all veterans benefit from an increase. We knew the disability award needed to be improved. This has been in committee reports now for almost five years. The actions we are taking right now will make a positive difference in many lives of Canadian veterans. We also signalled our intention to increase the earnings loss benefit. It will be fully indexed so it keeps pace with inflation.
In the past, these benefits were not indexed. In 2011, when we talked about earnings loss benefit, that baseline was set to just over $42,000. Now we are resetting that baseline to $44,496. On top of that, we are increasing the amount they are eligible for, from 75% to 90%. That reset means that everyone will come away with at least a $2,000 a year improvement in their financial security. The earnings loss benefit is just one of many supports available to transition from military to civilian life.
Yes, we need to do a better job of communicating with veterans and telling them about the benefits and supports they deserve. Some help can be done immediately. I agree with the member opposite. I want to see those things happen. The mental health wait times had ballooned to over eight months. We are working on this. Do we want a centre of excellence on mental health? Yes, we do.
Some things take a little longer to put into place. When we talk about hearing loss, it is a pain and suffering award. It is a disability award and it can range anywhere depending upon the severity of it.
We all want the same things. We want to work together. We want to make the lives of veterans better. There is a lot more to do, but we are on our way.
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Exactly, Mr. Speaker, we want to work together.
I always thought that veterans affairs should not be a partisan issue. That is why I was pleased to see that the minister treated it separately in Bill C-12. However, that is no longer the case.
I would like to say to my colleague from Kanata—Carleton that unfortunately, she did not answer my question, which was on the amount of money that will be allocated retroactively to 2006 for hearing loss. The reason I want to know this sum is that Canadians are wondering if that was the right thing to do. Instead of making this retroactive payment, the government could have used this $3.7 billion implementing a lifetime disability pension effective immediately.
The concerns my colleague is talking about are indeed those of interest groups representing veterans. However, the veterans I meet in person talk to me about the lifetime disability pension option and not the disability benefits for hearing loss.
Karen McCrimmon Liberal Kanata—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is so much work to do. There is a lot of work to do with respect to the earnings loss benefit, the disability award, the permanent impairment allowance, mental health offices, and case workers. I am proud of what we have managed to accomplish to date. Is it all done? No, it is not anywhere near being done.
In terms of the retroactivity of these, this was based on recommendations that came out of the ombudsman's office. People have been waiting for this disability award increase for a while. They expect it. I know that we will have to make some decisions about what gets priority spending. If the member wants details, we can probably provide him details if he gives us a specific question, but we acknowledge that we need to work together to make this happen.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
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 6:45 p.m.)