House of Commons Hansard #349 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was affairs.

Topics

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1927Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Privy Council Office, since December 1, 2017: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the products or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.

Kevin Lamoureux

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Time Allotted for Consideration of Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to respond to the question of privilege by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on October 31, 2018 with respect to his concerns that there would not be enough time to scrutinize Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

The bill was introduced on October 29, 2018, and debated in the House on Thursday and Friday last week. It was scheduled for debate last Wednesday as well, but the opposition preferred to debate points of order and questions of privilege.

We expect more debate at second reading, and I understand that the finance committee has a plan for considering the bill. As members well know, once the committee has completed its work, there will be a further opportunity to consider the bill at the report and third reading stages. The member should not prejudge the legislative process.

I would also note that my hon. colleague was able to speak to the bill at second reading, and I am sorry to note that the majority of his intervention centred on his belief that there would not be enough time to scrutinize the bill. If the member had these concerns, he should have used his speaking slot more judicially and could have highlighted his policy concerns with the bill rather than prejudge the process for considering the bill.

My hon. colleague in his statement alleges that his ability to perform his duties as a member of Parliament are inhibited by the size of Bill C-86. I would argue that the matter before us today is not a question of privilege but rather a matter of debate.

First of all, I would like to remind the member that he stated that “The government's intention to not even take the time to respect parliamentary procedure and work through the committee structure to allow for appropriate debate so that we get more than a few seconds of scrutiny of each clause and subclause, to my mind, indicates a breach of privilege.” However, the Standing Committee on Finance adopted a motion framing the study of Bill C-86 in committee and as such made sure that the proper parliamentary procedure is followed on this subject matter.

Second, my hon. colleague blamed the lack of time between introduction of the legislation and the scheduled debate for second reading of the bill for his lack of preparation. To that, I would remind the House that a technical briefing with officials was offered to members to help them understand the bill and get prepared in provision of the debates. Consequently, I respectfully submit that this is a debate as to the facts and as such does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Bill C-86—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I have yet another response that I would like to go over at this point.

I rise today to respond to a point of order raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on October 31, 2018 with respect to the second budget implementation act, 2018 and the application of the Standing Order 69.1(2), which reads:

The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

My hon. colleague alleges that clauses 461, 462 and 535 to 625 of Bill C-86, which deal with the modernization of the Canada Labour Code are not mentioned in the budget and as such they would not be covered by the provisions of the Standing Order 69.1(2). In fact, the clauses identified by my colleague are referenced in the budget documents tabled on February 27, 2018. I would draw to the attention of members page 46 of budget 2018, which reads as follows:

To implement this change to the EI program, the Government proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act. In addition, the Government proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while they are receiving EI parental benefits.

Furthermore, if we look at pages 51, 63 and 64 of budget 2017, we find multiple references to the government's announced intention to amend and modernize the Canada Labour Code. As such, I respectfully submit that the dispositions mentioned by the hon. member are all covered under the purview of Standing Order 69.1(2) and consequently should be subject to separate votes at second and third reading.

Access to InformationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I have another response to an issue of privilege. I am pleased to rise again today to address the question of privilege raised on October 30, 2018 by the hon. member for Milton regarding information granted through order paper question no. 1316.

In her intervention, the member listed the following grievances: That the response she received was a non-answer; that the said response breached Standing Order 39(1); and that these alleged breaches somehow impeded her ability to carry out her duties as a member of Parliament.

On the first point, let us be very clear. In her Order Paper question dated November 8, 2017, the member across the way asked for “the titles of all individuals who approved the tweet”. While the member may not like the answer she received, it does not change the fact that the response was duly tabled within the prescribed timelines and according to the rules of the House of Commons. The concept that the Speaker does not judge the quality of answers is well established.

Page 529 of the 3rd edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice indicates the following:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate, nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.

Moreover, on page 527 of the 3rd edition, it states that given that the purpose of a written question is to seek and receive a precise, detailed answer, it is incumbent on a member submitting a written question “to ensure that it is formulated carefully enough to elicit the precise information sought.” Therefore, a differently worded question could have yielded a different and perhaps more satisfactory response.

Let me turn to the discrepancy between the questions posed by the member and that posed by the journalist through the access for information requests. If we compare the wording of both the OPQ and ATIP question, the ATIP requesters and the MP asked two different questions. The ATIP requesters asked for “all emails and any other communications”, while the MP asked for “the titles of all individuals who approved the tweet”, for which the minister listed her own title as the one responsible.

As well, it should be pointed out that the minister never assigned blame in her communications in the House, in the OPQ response, in question period or in her online comments. She took full responsibility. It was a statement of fact that the tweet occurred on her departmental account and not her personal account. It was not an assignment of blame. The minister took the blame.

While the Conservatives may be interested in pointing fingers at public servants and political exempt staff, it is the minister who is accountable and she did what a minister is supposed to do and took responsibility, as the principle of ministerial responsibility dictates she must do.

Now, let us turn to the alleged breach to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. While the member alluded to this in her remarks, I fail to see how the answer contravenes Standing Order 39.1.

In her remarks, my hon. colleague across the way noted that the news articles pointed out that the government “also violated the timelines set out in the Access to Information Act. Now, that is not your problem, Mr. Speaker.” I agree with her, Madam Speaker. This is not your problem.

Notwithstanding the fact that in this case different questions were asked, the process for handling Order Paper questions and access to information requests are different. Order Paper questions are a request for information by members to the government, while ATIP questions are subject to statutory requirements and may be asked by any members of the public, members of Parliament, journalists or others. When questions are identical, the government ensures that there is as little discrepancy between the answers provided to the House for Order Paper questions and the answers to ATIP questions.

However, in this case, while the queries touched on the same subject matter, they asked different questions. That is why the answers were different. Therefore, I do not see how this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.

Access to InformationPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

We note the information provided by the parliamentary secretary. I would indicate that in the first question of privilege, some of the information the member provided bordered on debate, and I would caution the member on that.

We will certainly take the information under advisement and we will get back to the House on it if need be.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, we have been eagerly awaiting our opportunity to tell stories of local veterans in the House and to try to get them the services they need. I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

Just days away is Remembrance Day. We will be celebrating and honouring the contribution of veterans. I will be standing with the Nanaimo—Ladysmith's Legions No. 256, Mt. Benson; No. 10 Harewood, in Nanaimo; No. 257 in Lantzville; No. 171 in Ladysmith; the Gabriola Islands veterans association; and Cedar Valley Memorial Gardens, all honouring and remembering the contribution of veterans. They all host us and facilitate the connection from young to old. I am looking very much forward to standing with them.

Veterans need parliamentarians to do our part to recognize and support those who have sacrificed for our country. There is clearly a debt owed, there is money in the till and sincere and vital promises have been made. Every year 3,000 veterans pass away, so let us get on with it and show that we truly support veterans everyday, not just on Remembrance Day.

On Friday, I was honoured to be in the Senate, along with my parents, for the armistice ceremony to recognize 100 years since the end of the great war, the war to end all wars. One of the quotes that moved us particularly was veterans noting that their fallen comrades said, “for their tomorrow we gave our today”. Just this year in a town hall the Prime Minister said, in response to a very angry question from the audience, that the reason the government was fighting veterans in court was veterans were “asking more than we can give”. That is a shocking thing to say, especially for those of us on the coast who do not support the Prime Minister's choice to buy a leaky old pipeline for $4.5 billion. Clearly, there is enough money to go around. What we hear everyday in our ridings is that veterans are not getting the support that they are owed.

We held a town hall along with Nanaimo Legion No. 10, during which veterans said that both Conservative and Liberal governments were “poisoning patriotism and the desire to serve our country.” They said. “Dealing with Veterans Affairs with PTSD is like being given a jigsaw puzzle and turning out the lights.”

These young veterans told me that they wanted a navigator to help with the tangled bureaucracy of PTSD treatment and to ensure that no veteran was discharged without pension and medical benefits already lined up. The Canadian Forces ombudsman echoed this in withering testimony to the Senate on March 8, saying that Canada was “not living up to our end of the bargain.” Our veterans deserve so much better.

Ken Young, a veteran in my riding. He is a brilliant and compassionate veterans advocate. He told me that someone he was working with who had ALS waited 16 weeks and still had no response to his phone call.

As NDP government leader Jagmeet Singh said:

Veterans shouldn't be put on hold for hours or redirected half a dozen times before they speak to the right person. And they shouldn't have to wait 6 months before receiving the benefits they rightly deserve, It's wrong to make our veterans wait for these services and it’s even worse that they’re being short-changed by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Today the New Democrats are taking over the agenda of the House with a fix as set out in the motion by my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, which is just north of me on Vancouver Island. He represents Parksville along with north and west Tofino. His motion, if passed by Parliament and implemented by the government, will dramatically improve the lives of Canada's veterans, at no additional costs to taxpayers. It seeks to solve two issues that have plagued the Department of Veterans Affairs under both Conservative and Liberal governments. It would end lapsed spending in the department by allowing this unspent money to be carried over to the next year and that would be for the sole purpose of improving services across the board for Canada's veterans and their families.

Here are some statistics since the Liberal government took power three years ago. The Liberals have only rehired 475 front-line staff at Veteran Affairs and just 260 case managers. They remain well short of the 25:1 ratio for which the Liberals themselves called.

The $372 million that has been allowed to lapse by the Liberals in their first three years could have been used to hire 5,716 full-time staff, enough to triple the number of staff working at the department. Honestly, this is what we need: to have a human voice to treat people with respect, the elders of our communities and the brave men and women coming home from the current modern wars, to take them by the hand and explain to them what they are entitled to so that nobody has to work out this maze of paperwork on their own.

I am hearing this a lot from my riding, that people are working hard. Mark Smith wrote me this year. He said, “Imagine being a 24 year old who has lost the use of both legs and suffer from the mental anguish that goes with the realization of being a 24 year old with no legs. Now receive a one time payout and a plane ticket home, imagine how fast that money disappears and imagine where that money went to.” He said about the Prime Minister, “He has stated that he has brought back life long pensions however only the most injured 75% plus will received approximately $2200 per month. This is outrageous.”

Another brave member of my community has fought Veterans Affairs for support after she, as a service person, was sexually assaulted by another service person. She has been trying to get help for a decade. It is a terrible problem.

A few whims have happened. The Canadian Medical Cannabis Council was very concerned about veterans who had been prescribed medical marijuana. In my riding in particular, in Nanaimo, Tilray is a licensed medical marijuana grower, a huge employer, a business that is deeply committed to research on the mental health side. I was sent a petition by thousands of constituents asking that Veterans Affairs cover the cost of marijuana extracts, because that is a more healthy way to take it. As a testament to the power of petitions and the work of the Canadian Medical Cannabis Council, the government changed that policy, so that was a win for us.

A great example of a service group is Vancouver Island Compassion Dogs. It straddles my riding and the riding of the member for Courtenay—Alberni. Together we visited this charity, which has paired 29 service men and women of the Canadian Forces, RCMP and veterans of foreign war with service dogs. It was inspiring to meet with these young men and women and see the effect that these service dogs have on them. There is a tremendous waiting list and it needs more funding and support, but we are very grateful to Vancouver Island Compassion Dogs and Barb and her whole team for the work that they do.

Another person in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Ken Osborn, has a six-foot bronze wreath with contributions of Remembrance Day poppies from all over the country. He offered that to the government. He was not able to qualify for funding to have this beautiful and moving war memorial travel across the country. That was a great disappointment to him, but I understand a veterans office is going to house it so maybe we will be able to see it next year.

I also want to applaud the work of the Veterans Transition Network at the University of British Columbia that is doing a series of vignettes, a play called Contact! Unload that breaks open the taboo of talking about mental health and support for veterans.

We certainly have so much work to do here in Parliament. We should put our money where our mouth is and stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting veterans in court. We should tackle homelessness. To our shame, homelessness rates in Canada say there might be as many as 1,300 veterans living on the streets. That is certainly happening in Nanaimo. To our great shame, there are veterans living on Mount Benson. I thank the people who go out to support them. We should act on detox agents for veterans exposed to chemical defoliants. We should relax the regulations on access for veterans who served in the Korean War to long-term retirement and service beds. The work for us goes on and on.

Let us please vote in favour of my comrade's motion. It would fund, with no additional cost to taxpayers, the treatment and care that veterans so clearly need.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for highlighting some of the significant cases she has in her community and the veterans who come from her community.

In relation to this particular motion, I have one question. Given the member's passion for ensuring veterans get what they deserve given what they have given to our country to get that, why in June 2018 did she and the entire NDP bench vote against the budget implementation act that included in it the pension—

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, they are laughing now. They are laughing at something which should not be a laughing matter.

Why did the NDP vote against the pension for life that was included in the budget implementation act in June 2018?

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, as the member well knows, when the government bundles so many policy pieces all into one bill, it is hard to find something that allows us to vote together. The present budget implementation bill is 800 pages. There has never been a bigger omnibus bill. It is almost double what the Harper Conservatives tabled, and we all decried it then. There are bound to be pieces that we want to pull out and debate separately. However, as I mentioned in my speech, some of the veterans in my community do not agree that the government's repair of the pension bill is correct.

Regardless, what we are debating today is something that would have no cost to taxpayers. It would move any money that the government is unable to spend that it had assigned in its budget in any given year forward to the next year so that veterans can get the full benefit of what was budgeted. I would like to know whether my colleague across the way on the Liberal side is going to vote yes.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated when our colleague shared her personal stories about the individuals and veterans in her riding. There is no question that our debt to them is very important and we need to do more. Since the Liberal government has come to power, we have reopened nine veterans offices, which is extremely important. There is the education program benefit for six years of service at $40,000 or 12 years of service at $80,000 is major. The pension for life is what they were asking for when I was going about in my riding and there is the disability award of $50,000. Those are big benefits.

I do not doubt that the New Democrats would like to give all those benefits that we have given. The problem I have is this: They guaranteed a balanced budget. They are against trade. They are against pipelines. Where are the revenues going to come from to actually pay for those services? That is the question.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has shortchanged veterans to the tune of $372 million of unspent program funding. This is such a win-win motion to vote in favour of. It would get the money that has been allocated. The Liberal government has only rehired a fraction of the people, the public servants, who are needed to navigate and support veterans. The government has not met even half of its own service standards. There is such a lot of damage to repair from the decade that the Conservatives were in power, so I do not understand why the government would not want to vote in favour of this motion. The government budgeted the money. It has been unable to spend it. It has not rehired the front-line folks.

We need to vote yes to this motion.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the critic for the status of women and gender equality, whether she is concerned about the fact that the ombudsman's most recent report clearly shows that response times are much too long for francophone female veterans.

Does she not believe that the government should invest more in services for women and francophones?

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

November 5th, 2018 / 3:50 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, the least we can do for veterans is to spend the money that has been allocated in the budget. If we were able to put more resources into the front line, we would not have the wait times that my colleague describes, both for francophones and for women in particular.

I also want to flag that when the government does not fulfill its obligations, the burden falls to the families, which is often the girlfriends, the wives and the extended family. If we can do our part, then we will be supporting families as well.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a delight to follow my impassioned colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. She is a hard act to follow, a very passionate act to follow.

This is a very serious motion which I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for bringing to the House of Commons today. It would require that the government that is carrying forward annual lapsed spending actually use the money now for the purpose for which it was earmarked by this Parliament.

I can do no better than quote the current Prime Minister who, during the 2015 campaign at a stop in Trenton, Ontario, said the following:

They left unspent more than $1 billion that Parliament allocated for veteran support. Canadians know that this is wrong.

Of course, he was referring to the former Conservative government. The Liberal government has not left $1 billion unspent, but over the last three years it apparently has left $372 million unspent.

The government would want us to think this was just some sort of administrative issue, nothing to look at, and we should just move on. However, that is just not the case. To its credit, the government has put on its website something called “standards of service”, standards that a department should be held accountable to meet. I salute the government for doing that.

There are 24 of them, and they talk about what the reasonable expectations of a veteran should be in terms of accessing disability benefits, pensions, how long it should take for this and that. The problem is that with fully half of those standards of service, the government, by its own admission, is not meeting. Good for the Liberals for putting a greater degree of accountability for the veterans across this land, but now it says, “Oh well, it is just an administrative problem so move on.” There is $372 million Parliament said should be spent to address these problems, and the government has chosen not to spend that money.

To show how quickly the government can move, here we are a few days before Remembrance Day, and the CBC has pointed out that more than 270,000 veterans were shortchanged by the same Veterans Affairs department over eight years because of an accounting error, meaning it lost $165 million that should have been given to them for benefits, pensions, disability and the like. Thanks go to our veterans ombudsman, Mr. Parent, for observing that. The government saw this story in the newspaper today, or at least it was brought to the Canadian public's attention, and then instantly the government found that $165 million and said it was going to do the right thing.

My point is obvious. Why does the government not do the right thing for those veterans who are suffering under what the government acknowledges are deficiencies in the service that they are entitled to?

Today one of my colleagues pointed out how we stand on Remembrance Day and salute the brave women and men who served this country so valiantly, but this is not a one-day affair. This is requiring services over the entire calendar year. One of the great things that becoming an MP has given me is a greater understanding of the world of our veterans. I confess it is a world that I did not know much about when I became an MP six years ago, but I have come to know their struggles, their bravery. I have become a member of Legion Public Service Branch 127, and I will stand with veterans this Sunday, Remembrance Day. Last year, I had the opportunity to go with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, veterans, and young people to Passchendaele and to see the horrors of World War I displayed there. This year I will be back in Victoria with the veterans in our community, and the Legion that supports them so well.

This department needs to give its head a shake and do something. It found that money quickly when it was brought to its attention. Why does it not stand with us? The Conservatives let $1 billion lapse. The Liberal government has let $372 million lapse over three years. Let us just get the money and hire the people who can help the veterans to get on with their lives.

It is just not acceptable that the number of people who are available from Veterans Affairs to assist our veterans are just not available. The government talked about a standard of one in 25, that is to say one care worker for 25 veterans. In some places, it is much worse than that. It is one in 42 in Kingston, Thunder Bay and Calgary. My colleague has pointed out that north of 60, there is no one, despite there being 85 cases. There is not a single care worker from Veterans Affairs to assist those people.

Do not tell me that there are no real needs that could be met if this money were actually spent as Parliament voted it.

I did congratulate the government a while back for the fact that it put accountability on its website for the service standards. Something else I appreciate is the fact that it has given its ministers what are called mandate letters. These are the expectations the Prime Minister says Canadians might legitimately have of ministers for fulfilling the commitments that have been made to Canadians within the various departments of government.

I would like to talk about one that has caused me enormous angst, and that is a commitment in the mandate letter of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It reads:

eliminate the “marriage after 60” claw-back clause, so that surviving spouses of Veterans receive appropriate pension and health benefits.

That is what it says. Let me tell members how it works in the real world.

Patricia Kidd is a constituent of mine who married a naval surgeon. He died in 2016. He was the chief medical officer for the Pacific command. They fell in love. They lived together for 33 years and were married for 31 years. Why did she not get a veterans survivor benefit, a pension, like other widows? It was because Dr. Kidd married her after he turned 60. If he had married her at 59, we would not be having this debate. Like many people across this land, there is no way she can get one penny of survivor benefits under the pension scheme.

This goes back to 1901. I think the fear was that young women would marry aging veterans just for their pensions. A horrible name was given to this particular clause. Those who marry after 60 years of age in 2018 are in exactly the same boat as people in 1901, if members can belief that. It is shocking.

I went to the former minister, the member for Calgary Centre, and he said that he was working on it. I then went to see the current minister, not once but twice. I wrote him in September 2017, and I wrote him again in 2018. I spoke with him just a couple of weeks ago. Guess what. He is working on it. It is a high priority. It is in his mandate letter.

What has happened is absolutely atrocious. It was 28 months ago that I had the first conversation, and absolutely nothing has been done for Patricia Kidd or for other women who are in the same situation, and yes, they are mostly women. I find it offensive.

I give the government full marks for having accountability by putting its expectations in mandate letters so people can hold the government to account, but when it does that and does nothing for 28 months, except tell me and Patricia it is working on it, that is just not acceptable. Leaving aside the incredible injustice and sexism that lies just a bit behind this deficiency, if we had $372 million, maybe we could start addressing some of these deficiencies, some of the gaps in service standards the department, by its own admission, has acknowledged.

This is not going to cost taxpayers a penny. This is about doing the right thing. This is about spending the money Parliament earmarked. I just hope we can count on the government's support so we can address this injustice and injustices like it head on.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Last year, $4.4 billion was spent on veterans and their families, which is $1 billion more than the Conservative government's peak spending.

Our plan for veterans goes much further than that of the NDP.

How can my colleague explain the NPD's change in vision?

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, I am at a loss to really understand what the question means, so I will do my best.

The fact that the former Conservative government lapsed $1 billion and the current government only lapsed one-third of that is not grounds for congratulation. The fact that the government has spent more money to address the deficiencies of the last government by opening offices that were closed, by hiring a few of the people back who were put on the street rather than serving veterans, is a good thing. However, the question before us today is not how much better the government is than the last government. The question is why we cannot spend the money that was earmarked for veterans in the first place to do some of the things I have addressed, such as the absolute travesty facing women who marry veterans who are over the age of 60, and things of that sort.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his point of view on this today, but the problem with the motion is that it is addressing an accounting principle. The principle is that one budgets money and then spends money based on how it was budgeted but also based on what the demand is. It really does not matter whether there are 10 veterans who are claiming benefits or 10,000, we always have to make sure that there is enough money available so that everyone can get the benefits they require.

For example, last year, 93% of the budget was spent. Next year, we might go over 100% of the budget and have to spend more money, but this is what budgeting is all about.

Let us talk about some of the things we have done. There are pensions for life, and we opened nine offices that were closed. He said that we have hired a few staff. We have hired 470 new staff positions and put forward a joint suicide prevention program, creating opportunities for new employment for vets. It is clear that we are doing exactly what we committed to do, and I really wish the NDP would start to see that.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Kingston and the Islands, where, despite a commitment of one in 25 caseworkers for veterans, he is in a community where one in 42 is the number.

The member likes to pretend that this is simply an accounting exercise. I invite the member to read the report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer entitled “Why Does the Government Lapse Money and Why Does it Matter?”, and he would understand that it is not a sufficient answer. He would also not be terribly proud to know that 470 staff were hired of the over 1,000 that were fired by the last government.

Frankly, I would ask him to address what it is the Prime Minister was talking about when he said, on August 24, 2015, “[The Conservatives] left unspent more than $1 billion that Parliament allocated for veteran support. Canadians know that this is wrong.”

I agree with the Prime Minister.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for VeteransBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that, with $372 milllion, we could review the federal government's decision to transfer the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital for veterans to the provincial government.

We were told that this transfer would have no effect on the number of doctors or the nursing care offered to patients, but that is not true. Some articles have shown that veterans feel that services have been lacking since the hospital was transferred to the provincial government.

Does my colleague believe that the $372 million could have been used to provide services in regions like mine where there are five branches of the Royal Canadian Legion and veterans who need services?