Debates of Sept. 18th, 2017

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

Infrastructure

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I previously asked if steps would be taken to allow for funding for infrastructure to flow directly to municipalities. It is extremely important that these steps be taken, as approximately 60% of infrastructure in Canada is under municipal jurisdiction. Funding infrastructure in our country, therefore, means getting it to the municipalities.

The government's budget 2017 states that because rural and northern communities of under 100,000 have unique infrastructure needs that require a more targeted approach, the government will invest $2 billion over 11 years to support a broad range of infrastructure projects. It is to be allocated to provinces and territories on a basis of per capita allocation. This is a bit self-contradicting, in the sense that the government will distribute it on allocation to municipalities, but the province gets the option of how it distributes it and whether it needs to go directly to municipalities. A targeted approach would target the rural municipalities themselves, not allocate the funds to a provincial government. If anything, this method of allocation has missed the target, as is apparent in the experience of many Alberta municipalities.

Small municipalities pass budgets that allocate funds to getting projects shovel ready, but they are wasting considerable time and money doing so. Getting projects ready when they are informed to get on that list is a very expensive project, especially for small communities. Engineering costs a lot of money, so when getting those projects ready, it costs money to apply to get some of the money. Their time and money are wasted because their applications became stale-dated, unlike large municipalities that have shovel-ready projects they can pull off the shelf. Smaller ones cannot do that.

Engineered projects are important to small communities, but the province allocates the funds to these shovel-ready projects instead of supporting the smaller ones, because they can pull them off the shelf immediately.

Budget 2017 also states that bilateral agreements with provinces and territories will have flexible terms, so that funds can be directed to the areas with the greatest need. This seems well intentioned, but the implementation is clearly lacking. Small or rural municipalities under 100,000 that may be in great need of infrastructure investment in many cases simply cannot compete with larger cities with shovel-ready projects. Cities of 100,000 are different from those of 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000.

Infrastructure dollars should be disseminated to municipalities in a similar manner to the gas tax refund. This way, municipalities could use the funds to engineer the projects, get them shovel ready, and implement them. This is what an approach that hits its target looks like.

The government's bilateral agreements with provincial and territorial governments need to be re-evaluated for phase two to ensure that infrastructure dollars actually get to the municipalities for which they were intended. The agreement should explicitly state that the money goes to municipalities so that we do not have a repeat of the hundreds of millions of dollars of new Building Canada fund money that ended up being spent as Alberta government general revenue. It should contain provisions that accommodate the needs of municipalities that are in the process of engineering shovel-ready projects.

Will the government now commit to ensuring that funding flows directly to the municipalities? It can be flow-through, as with the gas tax, but if it is a bilateral that allows them to use it for their own purposes—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question, and as an aside, the beautiful tie he is wearing to commemorate the visit of Prime Minister May today.

We are committed to supporting Albertans as we work to improve the infrastructure we need and use every day. That is why we worked in partnership with our Alberta counterparts to sign a bilateral agreement to put into effect two important new programs: the clean water and wastewater fund and the public transit infrastructure fund. To date, we have approved funding for 174 projects that will help improve essential transit and water systems that help strengthen Albertan communities.

The government has also approved more than $1 billion in federal funding through the new Building Canada fund. This funding is supporting major investments, such as the Yellowhead Trail freeway and the southwest Calgary ring road project.

We are also supporting smaller communities through this fund, such as Bragg Creek and Cougar Creek, where flood mitigation projects have been identified as priorities by the community and supported under our programming.

We continue to work closely with Alberta to commit the remaining funding to provincial and municipal priorities.

Communities in Alberta continue to benefit from the federal gas tax fund, which provides reliable, predictable long-term funding. In 2016-17, Alberta received over $219 million under the gas tax fund, which helped to fund local infrastructure projects.

It is important to point out that our programs are structured in such a way as to respect municipal decisions. The municipalities are the experts and know what they need to be healthy, viable, and sustainable. The municipalities tell the Province of Alberta what their most pressing needs are, and the Province determines which projects are a priority and presents them to the federal government in order to obtain funding. By working closely with the municipalities in this way, the provinces and territories ensure that they meet the most pressing needs of their communities and we can ensure that federal investments are making a difference locally.

We will continue to work closely with Alberta to ensure that all federal funding given to communities in the province is transferred quickly and used strategically to promote job creation.

We are very proud of our partnership with Alberta and with everything we have accomplished so far. Moving forward, we will continue to work closely with Alberta on a new bilateral agreement under the long-term investing in Canada infrastructure plan to strengthen Alberta communities and the quality of life for all Albertans.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague has made and I would agree in principle. He is absolutely right. I have a list of all the projects that were approved. However, as a former vice-president of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, I understand clearly how the communities were offered to apply and get their projects in, but then the provincial government, after it promised to give them this money, diverted hundreds of millions of dollars and spent it in general revenue. This cannot continue. If we have a plan and we want to see it done, and I agree with the member, we should make a bilateral agreement so it cannot do this.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's support for Alberta is strong and unwavering. To date, we have dedicated nearly $530 million from phase 1 of our infrastructure plan to Alberta and we continue to work with our Alberta partners to fully commit this funding.

We are listening to local communities in order to ensure that these investments are producing as many benefits as possible for all Canadians, no matter where they live.

Our government's focus on public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade, and transportation, as well as rural and northern infrastructure is sure to promote job creation in every province in many domains.

We are proud of everything we have been able to accomplish in partnership with Alberta and look forward to continuing our efforts with the province and its communities.

Official Languages

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we come back for the fall 2017 session of Parliament, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to begin this evening's adjournment proceedings. It is a pleasure to be here and to be able to speak on behalf of not only the people of the riding of Drummond, but also all residents of official languages communities throughout Canada.

Today I wish to come back to a question I asked last March. That was several months ago, but nevertheless, it remains an important issue and I hope to get some clear answers.

Last March I asked how the Prime Minister could justify the fact that he failed to abide by the Official Languages Act during his cross-Canada tour at the beginning of 2017. There was a bit of a scandal at the time that really reverberated with people. People may recall a trip to the Aga Khan's private island over the holidays. In fact, the media recently reported, on September 13 to be exact, that that holiday did not cost $127,000, but rather double that, $215,000.

Anyway, the Prime Minister went on a cross-Canada tour, and during that tour, he went to Peterborough, Ontario, and he forgot that there are Franco-Ontarians. Someone asked a question in French, and he said that he was going to answer only in English because he was in Ontario. Then he went to Quebec, to the Eastern Townships, where there are a lot of English Quebeckers. Someone asked a question in English, and he refused to answer it in English. He forgot all about the English-speaking official language minority communities in Quebec and the French-speaking official language minority communities in Ontario.

I asked him if he felt he had violated the Official Languages Act, and even though he would not admit that he had, about fifty people submitted complaints to the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Commissioner of Official Languages responded with a finding that the Official Languages Act, parts VII and IV in particular, had indeed been violated.

In the report, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommended that the Privy Council Office put measures in place by September 2017, in order to ensure that the public receives services in both official languages during public town hall meetings where the Prime Minister is to address Canadians. The funny thing is that it is September 2017 and we might be lucky enough to have some information on the measures that are supposed to be in place.

The Prime Minister holds open town hall meetings and receives information from the public. He has to be able to hold them in both official languages. He has to provide all the services in such a way that both official languages are respected. The Prime Minister himself does not necessarily have to speak both official languages at the time, but the Privy Council Office has to ensure that both official languages are respected. The Prime Minister has to realize that he has responsibilities when it comes to promoting English and French within Canadian society. Part IV—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on the future and especially the future of our official language minority communities. The primary objective of the Prime Minister's cross-country tour was to connect with people and listen to what they had to say. The Government of Canada stands with all Canadians.

Our government is proud of the concrete actions taken since the fall of 2015 that will have positive impacts for official language minority communities and for the use of both of our official languages across the country. For example, through the 2017 budget, our government is providing $80 million over 10 years to support the construction of community educational infrastructure in official language minority communities. This is because we are committed to maintaining and supporting the vitality of our official language minority communities by supporting infrastructure projects such as school day care centres, school community centres, or cultural centres in collaboration with provinces and territories.

We also reinstated the long form census, increased funding for CBC/Radio-Canada, and reinvested in the Canada Council for the Arts. We modernized the court challenges program, implemented measures to ensure the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court, and launched the review of the regulations governing bilingual federal services. We reopened the francophone component of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, and supported the francophone heritage, culture and tourism corridor of the Réseau de développement économique et de l'employabilité.

When it comes to immigration, last March, we held the first intergovernmental forum to get the provinces and territories involved in francophone immigration issues, and we made significant improvements to our immigration system to increase francophone immigration.

From June to December of 2016, we held 22 round table discussions on official languages across the country. They were open to the media and six of them were broadcast live online. Approximately 6,300 people responded to our online questionnaire. This demonstrates Canadians' strong interest in the future of our two official languages. We are now developing a new multi-year action plan for official languages to support English- and French-speaking minorities and to promote the use of our two official languages from coast to coast.

I would like to assure the member for Drummond that the Prime Minister of Canada is the number one champion of official languages in Canada. Under his leadership, our government is working to give both official languages their rightful place across the country.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before my time is up, I want to continue what I was saying about how part VII was violated, as was part IV, which indicates that the public has the right to communicate with the Prime Minister and federal institutions and obtain answers to their questions in the official language of their choice.

That tour was hastily planned to draw attention away from the scandal that was the Prime Minister's vacation on the Aga Khan's island, which cost an exorbitant amount of money and violated ethics rules. That tour was hastily planned, but what can be done now to ensure that slapdash consultations like those never happen again? What can be done to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected during consultations with Canadians? Has the Privy Council Office started to put measures in place so that this never happens again? That is what I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to tell me.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the vitality of official language minority communities and the promotion of bilingualism are two very important issues. By holding broad consultations from coast to coast in 2016 and drafting a new action plan for 2018, our government is stepping up and showing strong leadership with respect to promoting official languages.

For the Government of Canada our official languages are a priority. We are currently developing a new pan-governmental action plan for official languages that will provide a framework for the Government of Canada's action in a number of areas to further advance the vitality of minority communities and the use of both official languages across the country.

I would like to thank the member for Drummond for his remarks. Our government will continue to work with all members of Parliament to promote and protect our two official languages.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes the largest army base in Canada, I am proud to participate in today's adjournment debate. Over 5,000 soldiers at Base Petawawa and their families know I have their backs when it comes to keeping the government accountable. We owe it to our soldiers to keep them safe in whatever we ask them to do to perform in the service of our country. That obligation continues when the service is completed.

Earlier this year, I asked the Minister of National Defence why his party refused to implement the recommendation made by the Canadian Forces ombudsman to ensure that before a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces was medically released from the military all benefits were in place. I am pleased to confirm for the benefit of the military families watching this adjournment debate my strong support for this recommendation by the military ombudsman. The record at committee shows the numerous times I have brought this issue forward only to be stonewalled by the Liberal majority.

It was with some scepticism that I noted the change of position by the government to include a line in the announced defence policy that included the word “ensure” that benefits would be in place before a soldier was released. On a number of occasions, I brought to the attention of the House the case of now retired Warrant Officer Roger Perreault. The time I first brought attention to this case, 27-year veteran retired Warrant Officer Perreault was still a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Warrant Officer Perreault was seeking justice that was being denied him in his application to receive the critical injury benefit.

He was injured in 2006 in a blast from an improvised explosive device, while serving in Afghanistan. He has had three back surgeries, two hip replacements, and other complications. That case has still not been resolved.

I ask Canadians who are following this debate to question if it was just a coincidence. Roger Perreault was medically released two days before the Minister of National Defence announced, with great hoopla, the government would "ensure that all benefits would be in place before a member transitions to post-military life." Warrant Officer Roger Perreault was discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces with nothing in place, no pension, no medical benefit, no critical injury benefit, nothing.

The Liberal Party had known for over a year that this soldier was being medically released and still he was released with nothing in place. What is happening today? Roger has heard nothing about the critical injury benefit, except that his case may be heard in December. The pension that soldier paid into for almost 27 years and was entitled to receive, finally kicked in after months of complaining by his local member of Parliament. Roger is thankful for his local Conservative member of Parliament, for he is certain he would still be waiting for his pension had I not intervened.

The permanent impairment allowance, career impact allowance, or whatever it is being called this week, as the government keeps changing names of allowances to pretend it is providing a new benefit when in fact it has just renamed an existing benefit, has yet to show up. Ironically, if Roger wanted to smoke pot to alleviate his pain and suffering, he could get a pot licence from the Liberal government right way.

I hope it was this sorry record of treatment that led to the dishonourable discharge for the minister of Veterans Affairs from that portfolio in the last cabinet shuffle.

Now retired Warrant Officer Roger Perreault and thousands of military families just like his, face a new crisis. Thanks to the bad spending by the government and the need to raise taxes today to pay for the bad debt tomorrow, the futures of military spouses are now in peril. For many military families posted on a regular basis, the military spouse, who kept the home fires burning, would not have had the opportunity to accumulate a work pension. The guaranteed income supplement provides an additional monthly non-taxable benefit to the old age security pension recipients who have no other source of income.

When the Conservatives were the Government of Canada, in cases where couples that were previously not eligible for the guaranteed income supplement based on their total family income and who were involuntarily separated, for example, one spouse being admitted to a long-term care facility, the spouse remaining—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I know she cares deeply about the health and well-being of our military personnel.

We value the core duties and roles of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces very highly. I would like to reassure the member that the administrative arrangement the ombudsman's office shares with the department does not affect its ability to conduct efficient independent investigations. The model we have in place mirrors almost all other similar offices across government and meets the test of proper stewardship of resources. The Department of National Defence is committed to maintaining a positive and productive working relationship with the ombudsman. That is why we have encouraged him to come forward if he faces any barriers to carrying out his mandate.

My colleague mentioned an ombudsman's report about soldiers released for medical reasons. As the member knows, the government considered several options to improve the transition process.

Through our new defence policy, we are transforming our approach to managing our women and men in uniform. This includes ensuring that we provide the best possible care and support to our military personnel as they transition out of uniform.

As such, a new transition group of approximately 1,200 personnel will be set up to provide flexible and personalized support to members leaving the forces as well as those recovering from illness or injury, with the goal of returning them to active duty.

Furthermore, we will re-establish a personnel branch of experts in military human resources management to ensure that pension administration is complete before military personnel move on to post-military life.

These are complex initiatives that will not be implemented overnight. The Canadian Armed Forces will take the time that is necessary to get this right while ensuring that services to transitioning members continue to be delivered.

We have also been working closely with Veterans Affairs on pursuing ways to streamline and improve coordination between our two departments. Serving our veterans is one of the highest priorities we have as a government and we will not let them down.

Our collaboration will ultimately improve the transition experience for Canadian Armed Forces members. The goal is to help releasing members with a range of harmonized and integrated services as they transition.

This means clear guidance, timely access to benefits and services, and coordinated case management between National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. We look forward to the ombudsman’s continued support in making improvements that benefit the military, departmental civilians, and all those who form part of the defence team.

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

Mr. Speaker, the spouse remaining in the marital home could apply to be reassessed as a single individual rather than as part of a couple. Singles receive a higher benefit than individuals living as a couple. That policy was quietly changed earlier this year. Military spouses will face the immense economic burden of living below the same poverty level guidelines used for the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement.

It is an unfortunate fact that medical challenges as a result of military service contribute to a shortened lifespan, which may include an extended period living in a facility that provides specialized care. What this will mean for military couples is that the spouse at home will lose the family pension if his or her loved one is institutionalized. Military families do not deserve this worry.

The Liberal Party shamelessly campaigned on the backs of veterans to inflate expectations. It was another broken promise.

This veteran sacrificed his health and family in service to his country. It is all about fairness.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we consulted widely with all Canadians in order to come up with a defence policy that reflects who we are. This policy was based on the recommendations of Canadians who asked us to care for our military personnel and make sure they have the training and equipment they need, but also to care for their health and well-being. That means ensuring a seamless transition from military to civilian life.

In that regard, after the huge budget cuts made by the previous Conservative government, we invested new money in Veterans Affairs in order to support people reintegrating into civilian life. That is why our policy stipulates that no soldier will leave the military without receiving his or her pension, and that we will create a group of experts to lead that transition. The health and well-being of our military personnel is a major concern—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)