Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2017

Ottawa River Watershed

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of the Ottawa Valley riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to a motion that is being put forth by an MP from the city of Ottawa. Motion No. 104 asks for another study to join the multitude of studies that have already been done on the Ottawa River and its watershed. The motion then asks for a study to justify the expenditure of more taxpayer dollars to create a new layer of bureaucracy to interfere with the lives of the people who call the Ottawa River watershed home. Residents who live in the Ottawa River watershed know that it will not be the residents of Ottawa who will be asked to pay for this new level of bureaucracy that is being proposed in this motion; it will be the rural residents who live out on the land who will be required to pay.

Before this debate goes any further, I believe it is important to inform this House that the detailed study that the motion calls for has already recently been completed. A detailed study of the Ottawa River watershed was done in preparation for the designation of the Ottawa River as a Canadian heritage river. The study was undertaken by the former MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the late Leonard Hopkins. There are veteran MPs in this House who served with Lenny and are aware of his efforts.

Mr. Hopkins worked with a large volunteer committee for years in preparation for the designation of the Ottawa River as a heritage river. That study was finished and is easily available on the web today. It covers everything that is in the motion. Unfortunately for Mr. Hopkins and for this motion, a fatal flaw in the study has been replicated in the motion. One of the concerns I raised as the sitting member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was the inability of Mr. Hopkins and his committee to obtain the consent of the Province of Quebec to designate the Ottawa River as a Canadian heritage river, which would have then included the two-thirds of the Ottawa River watershed that is in the province of Quebec. When I asked my fellow Ottawa Valley MP, Robert Bertrand, who represented the Quebec riding of Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, what his position was on the issue, he told me he was not consulted. This surprised me, as Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Bertrand had been caucus colleagues.

The Quebec provincial government of the day took the position that it was not interested in participating in the designation process, as this could result in relinquishing provincial jurisdiction to the federal government. This motion is asking to set up a management plan for the Ottawa River watershed with no authority to act in two-thirds of the Ottawa River watershed. The Province of Quebec has no interest to invite the federal government to interfere in matters of provincial jurisdiction.

I note with curiosity that the then Quebec minister of the environment representing the Quebec government on the issue as a Liberal member of the Quebec National Assembly, who turned down participation in any heritage designation of the Ottawa River, sits in this House today as the MP for Outremont, the leader of the NDP. I have no reason to believe that his position has changed today.

That represents a major flaw in the designation of the Ottawa River as a Canadian heritage river by the federal government. The designation only includes the Ontario portion of the Ottawa River, which is just 35% of the watershed. Sixty-five per cent of the Ottawa River watershed, including the bank of the Ottawa River in Quebec, is not designated. Except where the river is an international boundary that limits Canadian jurisdiction, such as the St. Croix River in New Brunswick, there are no designated heritage rivers in Canada where just one side of the river is so designated.

Recognizing the position of the Government of Quebec today, I ask this. What good is the creation of an Ottawa River watershed council when two-thirds of the watershed will be excluded from any study? Is it the intention of this motion to ignore the concerns of the people of Quebec and set up a bureaucracy, which is not wanted, to impose regulations and controls that are not needed, starting with this proposed study, and to take actions that will be rejected?

People who live in the Ottawa River watershed have been co-operating for years when it comes to common shared interests. The Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board was established in 1983 by the governments of Canada, Quebec, and Ontario to ensure integrated management of the principal reservoirs of the Ottawa River basin. Costs are shared, with Canada picking up 50% of the tab and with Ontario and Quebec sharing the remaining cost, 25% each. The board consists of seven members: Canada with three members, Ontario with two members, Quebec with two members. The member agencies that make up the board are the Quebec ministry of sustainable development, environment, and parks, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Hydro-Québec, Ontario Power Generation, Environment Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada, and the Canadian Coast Guard. The goal of this integrated management is to provide protection against flooding along the Ottawa River and its tributaries, particularly in the Montreal region, and at the same time maintain the interests of the various users, particularly in hydroelectric energy production. As has been demonstrated before, rivers bring people together more often than they artificially separate people as a boundary. This is true with the Ottawa River.

The next most important reason I will be voting against Motion No. 104, and I encourage all members of the House to reject it also, is that the motion before us today fails to recognize the comprehensive agreement in principle recently signed between the federal and provincial governments and the Algonquins of Ontario. That agreement, among other things, proposes to transfer ownership of 36,000 square kilometres, or 117,000 acres, of land in the Ottawa River watershed to the Algonquins of Ontario. In addition to land and cash, Algonquins have negotiated hunting, fishing, and trapping rights as well as other natural resources in the Ontario portion of the Ottawa River watershed beyond what is being proposed for land transfer. That includes Algonquin Park for hunting and fishing.

Ottawa River watershed management is an integral part of that negotiation, which is ongoing. What has been signed in this agreement is in principle only. It is anticipated that it will be years before a final agreement is reached, so negotiations continue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid 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.

The hon. member will have four minutes and 30 seconds remaining when the House next returns to the motion.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Veterans Affairs

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on February 14, I directed a question to the Prime Minister on behalf of Corporal Terra Janz, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, regarding her eligibility for an entitlement to a disability pension in relation to an accident that occurred as a result of her service to Canada.

In 2005, Corporal Terra Janz suffered a severe back injury in the line of duty. She was medically released and is in receipt of a partial medical pension from Veterans Affairs. According to Terra's medical specialist and her family doctor, as a consequence of her injury, she suffers from a painful condition referred to as an atonic bladder. This is in addition to the condition for which she receives a partial medical pension.

Sometimes referred to as a flaccid bladder, in her case the condition developed as a consequence of her severe back injury. The back injury impaired the ability of the nerves in the bladder to relay proper signals to the brain. This causes a buildup of urine that requires her to self-catheterize, a painful and expensive procedure she must follow for the rest of her life.

Based on the bureaucratic opinion that because women are more susceptible to bladder infections, and that a bladder infection and this condition must be related, she was denied a pension for this disability based on a previous bladder infection. Rejected by the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entitlement for her bladder condition in November 2013, Corporal Janz appealed that decision to the entitlement review panel, which confirmed the earlier decision.

On October 12, 2016, Corporal Janz was denied her appeal by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which upheld the decision of the review panel to refuse to acknowledge that the condition known as atonic bladder, which Corporal Janz suffers from, was caused by the condition of mechanical lower back pain, for which she is currently in receipt of a partial pension payment from the Government of Canada. Ironically, the appeal board was prepared to confirm that Corporal Janz suffered from atonic bladder that occurred at the same time as her severe back injury. It chose to treat the two as coincidence rather than recognizing the obvious link.

Corporal Janz had a very unsatisfactory experience with the appeal board. She found that the counsel provided to her by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates was unprofessional and generally unprepared to represent Corporal Janz's case. Corporal Janz received no opportunity to review her case with the assigned advocate, other than, at the most, for several minutes before appearing before the appeal board.

Important details were omitted from her appeal case, such as the presence of two spinal fractures, facts that were omitted in her original assessment that are considered highly relevant to the assessment of this type of injury and condition. Somehow the presence of a tear on Corporal Janz's disk was missed. Her file was riddled with other inconsistencies, suggesting that other medical issues were missed. This had a negative effect on her case. While referring to her family doctor as a general practitioner and suggesting that, as a non-specialist, his opinion should be discounted, no mention was made that this doctor was formerly a military doctor operating in the capacity of a chief base surgeon.

Veterans are not interested in hearing how many new bureaucrats have been hired or that empty offices are being opened in government-held ridings. They are not interested in listening to the Liberal Party fight the last election using the same tired campaign rhetoric that was used to confuse veterans and their families. Mindless talking points scripted by the Prime Minister's Office are not acceptable to veterans. Veterans want action. Veterans want fair hearings, and I request a thorough review of this case.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well, due to the federal Privacy Act I am unable to comment on any specific cases nor any appeals at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Our government recognizes the notable contributions that veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members have made and continue to make to preserve the peace and protect the safety of Canadians here and around the world.

We owe an immense amount of gratitude to the women and men who have served in times of war, military conflict, and in peace, and to their families who serve along with them. This is especially so for those who were injured in the course of their duties.

While I cannot talk about specific cases, I can discuss how our government is committed to providing veterans, Canadian Armed Forces members, the RCMP, and their families with the support and benefits they need and have earned, when and where they need them.

Veterans Affairs Canada provides a range of programs to promote the well-being of those who were injured or became ill in the performance of their duties, including disability and related health care benefits, rehabilitation services, financial benefits, and support to families. In budget 2016 we committed $5.6 billion to increase financial benefits for disabled veterans. This includes increasing the value of disability awards to a maximum of $360,000, increasing the amount of earnings loss benefit to 90% of an eligible veteran's military salary, and expanding access to the permanent impairment allowance for those with career-limiting, service-related injuries.

These enhancements deliver on commitments in the mandate of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and they respond to recommendations from key stakeholders, including the veterans ombudsman.

To increase services to veterans we also began to reopen the nine veterans affairs offices that had been closed across the country, providing veterans with access to services that they need. We are on track to have these offices open by this spring.

This government is and will remain committed to supporting our veterans and their families by providing the benefits and programs they need to succeed in civilian life. I encourage any veteran who feels he or she may have a service-related illness or injury to reach out to Veterans Affairs Canada so their needs can be discussed and support provided wherever possible.

While I have outlined some of the services and benefits provided by Veterans Affairs Canada and the efforts taken to support veterans and their families, we recognize that we can do better and we will. When a specific case issue is raised, I can assure the House that we are fully committed to making every effort to address the issue and to find ways to improve the system.

I welcome an opportunity to meet with the member opposite to discuss this further.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Liberal government to not compensate a veteran for an injury sustained while on duty on the basis of gender is just plain wrong.

What was particularly distressing to the veteran when I raised this question in the House of Commons last week was the nonsensical answer from the Liberals that hiring more bureaucrats would somehow make up for poor decision-making. This has nothing to do with hiring more bureaucrats or opening empty offices in government-held ridings. Veterans are not interested in fake promises. The Liberals have been in government for over a year. A selfie picture is no substitute for real action.

This decision needs to be fixed and there is a fix. The military ombudsman has given his report and made a recommendation that reads, “We recommend that the CAF determine whether an illness or injury is caused or aggravated by that member’s military service and that the CAF’s determination be presumed by VAC to be sufficient evidence to support an application for benefits.” I have moved that we implement that recommendation on two separate occasions, the latest being today, and the Liberals all denied implementing this on behalf of veterans.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada takes the health and well-being of veterans very seriously. We remain committed to providing veterans with the support they need to lead successful, financially secure, and healthy lives beyond their service to Canada. I am proud of what we have achieved to date, but there is more work to do to advance the overall well-being of veterans and their families.

I reiterate the invitation to the member across the aisle or any member of the House to meet with me so that we can work together to improve the lives of veterans and their families.

Status of Women

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I took up the issue of the government's commitments to indigenous women and the environment was in November when Amnesty International had just released a report on resource development in northeastern B.C. The headlines the following days read, ”In approving dam permits, Ottawa forgets its reconciliation promises”. We said at the time that the federal government had been green lighting development projects without any consideration for inequalities and risks to women that were too often a result of megaproject development.

The Amnesty International report also identified that there were no federally funded on reserve shelters in northeastern British Columbia.

I would like to know what the government has done since this very troubling study was released in November, when we last talked about it in question period.

I had the privilege of travelling to the Peace River Valley in July last year to meet with the landowners, the indigenous chiefs, the traditional territory of Treaty 8 nations. I met Yvonne Tupper, who is an inspiring, strong, Cree activist woman. She has made her home in the Peace River Valley. She wrote to me last night to say:

Site C will destroy migration paths for Predators and they will stay on either side of river. Wolves, grizzly bears, bears, wolverines. And Eagles nests destroyed. We are connected to land....Women and young girls should feel valued, appreciated, and respect like any and all women and young girls should in BC, Canada and world. We deserve it considering our lands, are being stolen in vast paces.

I also heard from Craig Benjamin who was one of the authors of the Amnesty report. He wrote to me this week to say:

The thing that has really stuck with me from conversations with Indigenous women in Treaty 8 territory, is hearing again and again that places like the lands threatened by Site C are vital healing places and that a government committed to stopping violence against women, has to be committed to standing with Indigenous women and their communities when they seek to protect those healing places.

The other point that we stressed in our...report is that we have more than two decades of studies in northeast BC repeatedly linking large-scale resource development to known threats to women's safety and wellbeing, from rising costs of living to shortages of housing and child care to rising substance abuse and violence--all of which was quite simply ignored in the assessment of the largest resource development in the region in recent history.

We heard testimony this week at the Status of Women committee from Kathleen Lahey, saying, “Canada has for a long time looked at infrastructure spending as its number one solution to economic growth problems”. She went on to describe the need to do a gender lens assessment of such spending to ensure it would have equal benefits for men and women, but also, and most important, not disproportionate negative impacts on women.

What has the government done since the tabling of this Amnesty International report on the Site C dam approvals to ensure there will not be further federal approvals that do not go through a gender test to ensure our most vulnerable people and environments are protected?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question put forth by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith regarding the Site C project.

In the fall of 2014, the former government approved the project and set legally binding conditions with which the proponent must comply. The Federal Court upheld the decision of the Governor in Council on August 28, 2015, and this decision of the Federal Court is now under appeal. The validity of this decision is currently in front of the Court of Appeal and will be settled in due time.

Our government is committed to building a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples that is based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. I am aware that the Amnesty International report indicates that the increased rates of violent crimes and diminished access to social services have placed indigenous women and girls at increased risk of harm while denying them the protections and support they need. There is no place for gender-based violence of any kind in this country, whether it is committed against an indigenous woman or any other woman. That is why the federal government is taking a series of concrete actions to address this critical issue.

Across this country, some $89.9 million will be spent over two years for the construction and renovation of shelters and transition houses for victims of violence in provinces and territories. Budget 2016 committed additional investments for women's shelters on reserves, up to $33.6 million over five years, and up to $8.3 million ongoing. There are other investments that will provide women and girls better opportunities and hope for a future where they will be safer, more secure, and have better choices. There is nearly $970 million for education infrastructure on reserves, $100 million in 2017-18 toward early learning and child care on reserve, more than $330 million for a renewed youth employment strategy, and a renewal of the urban aboriginal strategy, to name just a few. It is all part of an $8.4-billion investment over five years to improve the socio-economic conditions of indigenous peoples and their communities, and bring about transformational change.

In closing, I want to assure the House that we will honour our commitments to Canadians. We will work with Canada's indigenous peoples and other interested parties to achieve results for all Canadians, and for generations to come.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that it was the Liberal government that issued the fisheries permits in July last year which allowed the project to go forward. This is entirely in the Liberal government's lap, as has been pointed out by National Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and many other leaders in the strongest words.

Recently, we heard from Margot Young at the status of women committee. In talking about the disproportionate impacts on women, she said:

It really points again to the need to think about the gendered consequences and to have a lens that allows you access to the gender inequality consequences across a range of policy options. Really, what a national gender equality strategy would allow is the kind of systematic thinking about this issue that really would make the change to women's status in Canada.

Therefore, I ask again if the government will evaluate infrastructure projects with a gender lens.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, our government is committed to gender equality, and to ensuring that women and girls can live free from violence. Our government engaged with experts, advocates, and survivors across the country to develop a federal strategy to address gender-based violence. Approximately 300 individuals from over 175 organizations participated in round tables and consultations, and over 7,500 responded to an online survey. This feedback from Canadians will help to inform the development of a federal strategy. We are working to create the conditions to ensure that Canada is a place where all women can reach their full potential. We look forward to launching the strategy in the coming weeks.

Employment

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to address the question of the carbon tax cover-up, as it is being popularly called by Canadians.

The issue at hand is that the government has promised to introduce a nation-wide so-called price on carbon that will rise to $50 per tonne of carbon. That sounds like an academic question, but what it will do, according to finance department documents I have obtained and made public, is lead to a cascading effect of rising prices on consumers, businesses, and families. Naturally, these three groups want to know how much they will have to pay.

That was the subject of my access to information request of the government.

The government responded by indicating it had tables that calculated the cost of a carbon tax on families, depending on their income. It broke households down into five groups, quintiles: the very poor, the poor, the middle class, the upper middle class, and then the rich. The only problem is these tables have no numbers. They are blacked out so nobody can see them, hence the term “carbon tax cover-up”.

We know, based on the admission of the document, that there will be higher prices for consumers, businesses, and families and higher gas prices, home heating prices, and electricity prices. Groceries that are shipped by truck and train will become more expensive. People who are low income will pay disproportionately more because the items taxed form a larger share of their household budgets. Rural people and remote residents will pay more because they have to travel longer distances and, in some cases, they have longer and colder winters during which they must heat their homes.

The question is this. How much more will they have to pay?

There are some people who support carbon taxes, and that is their right. However, most of those people claim they want carbon taxes to be revenue neutral; that is to say that any new taxes Canadians will pay would theoretically be returned to them through offsetting tax reductions. Some say, for example, income taxes could be reduced. The old saying is “We will tax what you burn, not what you earn”. Others say to give it back in the form of rebates, or cheques in the mail.

However, to know whether a family is experiencing a net cost as a result of the carbon tax, we need to know what they are paying for it in the first place. If, for example, a family has to spend $4,000 on carbon taxes, then any government claiming that it is going to neutralize the cost would have to bring in measures to return $4,000 to that same family.

The government was elected on the promise of helping the middle class, but if the middle class is paying more in carbon taxes than getting back in benefits, then the government is doing the opposite of helping. It is harming the middle class. Therefore, to determine which it is, we ask the government to be open and transparent, as it also promised during the election, and release these documents, unredacted, for all eyes to see.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to give a response to the question that had been asked regarding employment, and I am going to continue forward.

Our government has been implementing its bold plan to strengthening the middle class and those who are working hard to join it, actually, for ordinary Canadians. We know it is working.

Here are the facts. Job growth is the best it has ever been in over a decade. The last six months were Canada's best six month stretch since 2002. In our first full year in office, the government created more jobs than the previous government did in 2013, in 2014, and in 2015.

For the most recent labour force survey this past January, employment rose by 48,300, following a gain of 46,100 in December. These employment gains were well above market expectations. This is the fifth gain in the last six months and continues the strong trend of 2016. However, we know there is still more to do.

We will continue to invest in families and in communities to help the middle class today and build a sustainable future for the entire country.

We moved forward knowing very well that when Canadians realize their full potential, they can build a better life for themselves, their family, and their entire community, and in doing so, build a better, stronger Canada for current and future generations.

As Canada's population ages, our prosperity will increasingly depend on young Canadians getting the education and training they need to prepare for the jobs of today and tomorrow. Our government is making those investments. We have increased funding for Canadian scholarships and bursaries, for students from low- and middle-income families, and for part-time students. As a result, over 360,000 students across Canada will receive more help to continue their studies.

We are working with the provinces and territories in order to expand the eligibility for Canadian scholarships so that even more students can receive non-repayable student financial assistance. In addition, through our youth employment strategy, the government is investing up to $330 million per year to help young Canadians get the skills and work experience they need to find and keep a good job.

Our government then built on these foundations by investing an additional $165 million in 2016-17 to enhance the youth employment strategy. These funds will help increase the number of youth who access the skills link program, a program that helps young Canadians overcome obstacles to employment. They will also create new green jobs for young people and increase job opportunities in the heritage sector.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we just witnessed the problem of the lack of transparency with the government. I asked a question about revealing government data on the cost of the carbon tax for the average person and family. The member stood up and read a totally unrelated speech provided to her by a minister's office, or probably by the PMO. Either she does not have an answer or she is afraid to provide the one she has. The reality is, Canadians are suffering.

Just this week, an elderly man said he is giving up his home and his truck because he cannot afford to pay for the heat and the fuel. Meanwhile, the carbon taxes that he will pay will help millionaires get rebates to purchase $150,000 electric cars. The member, who is supposed to speak on behalf of the government, cannot even address his concern or explain why her government is covering up the costs. Why is that?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I will respond to the question that I was asked and prepared for this evening.

I am happy to say that I do not share my hon. colleague's pessimism with regard to Canada's workforce. Canadians are among the most highly educated people in the world, placing at the top of all members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, for post-secondary attainments.

More than half of Canadian adults have a post-secondary education or degree. We are world renowned for scientific research and discovery, and can often be found on the cutting edge of clean technologies emerging right now on the world stage. We have abundant natural resources, outmatched only by our greatest resource. That is our people. I think I have made it abundantly clear that we are making effective targeted investments that continue to unleash their full potential, and in turn, Canada's full potential.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is 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 6:42 p.m.)