Debates of Dec. 12th, 2024

Veterans Affairs

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I want to put as a question, necessarily, to the House leader of the NDP. We are here to debate a concurrence motion that I think is very important on an issue the NDP brought forward that we need to address, which is how we take care of our veterans, and especially this concern of marriage after the age of 60. I do not understand. I liked what the Bloc member who spoke just a couple of speakers ago said, when he was asked a question by this member: that it is not about rehashing the past or fixing the past, which is not going to help veterans going forward.

As a veteran, I get very frustrated when any party speaks and makes veterans a partisan issue. We should be united here. What are the member's recommendations, going forward as a Parliament, so we can all work together to fix this shortfall?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives have a record. They need to acknowledge it. They have been disrespectful to veterans and they need to acknowledge it as a party and as members of Parliament. The Conservative Party has yet to acknowledge the incredible harm it did.

Peter Stoffer, the former Veterans Affairs critic for the NDP, passed that motion in 2006. Conservatives were in power for nine years after that and never fixed this disrespect of our nation's veterans. The Liberals have added another nine years on top of that, yet it is so simple to fix. The reality is that the Conservatives have a record they need to apologize for. The slashing of benefits, the closing of offices and the refusal to provide disability benefits all need to be acknowledged. I hope a Conservative, one Conservative, will have the guts to do that today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I was sitting here stunned at that last question and the desire for non-partisanship after having been subject to Conservative speeches that are nothing more than political rhetoric and exactly that: partisanship.

I can answer the last Conservative question. What could we do for veterans? We could have all unanimously voted in the House two nights ago for the $900 million going toward veterans, but Conservatives voted against it. Of course they are going to say, “Well, no, we voted against every budget thing. It is confidence.” They could have separated that one item on veterans, voted for it, and then showed non-confidence in the government for the other 149 times.

Would the member not agree that two nights ago, when we voted on the estimates, Conservatives should have voted in favour of those funds and resources going toward veterans?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree. Conservatives could have provided support for those veterans funds.

I am even more disturbed by a year ago. Members will recall December 7 and December 8, 2023, a night that will live in infamy in Canadian parliamentary history. Conservative MPs, every single one of them, voted to slash services to veterans. We are not talking about 18 years ago, 15 years ago or even 10 years ago, during the Harper regime, which was the worst period for veterans in Canadian history. We are talking about a year ago, when Conservatives voted to slash all veterans services. They all voted. We were here for 30 hours and they voted proudly. They smiled as they stood up and voted to slash veterans services.

We are not just talking about two nights ago. We are not just talking about a year ago. We are talking about systematically paying ip service to our nation's veterans. The member for Carleton loves to do that, while Conservatives obviously want to slash, cut and burn yet again, as they did when they were in power and the results were catastrophic for our nation's veterans. If they do not apologize for what they did in the past, how can anyone believe they would not act the same way in the future?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby raised the important point that in 2006, it was a New Democrat, Peter Stoffer, who first introduced this. In fact, we have introduced it seven times in private members' bills, most recently with Bill C-221, which was introduced in the 44th Parliament by the hon. member for North Island—Powell River. Here we are. We are still here today. Unfortunately, this is a government that likes to lament, send its thoughts and prayers, and say, “Oh, if only there was somebody in power who could actually do something.” It could do it. The government could do it right now.

The NDP has fought for veterans for so long because we consider it to be clear that every single person who has served, including all the members in the Conservative caucus who have served, are workers who deserve the utmost respect and not government overreach. This is not just about justice delayed; this is about justice denied. Will the hon. member please expand on the fact that this has been a decades-long struggle for the NDP fighting for workers, fighting for our veterans?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre always has great clarity on these questions. We could do this now. It could have been done a year ago or at any time, but there is no time better than the present. Let us get it done. The government needs to act.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak about the veterans affairs committee report that is before us. The reality is that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has great power, and literally with one fell swoop of a pen she could make this happen if she wanted to. The situation has been going on far too long. The committee report, as I said, was somewhat vague in its recommendations. There was not unanimous support, because there was a dissenting report by the NDP that called for the change to happen as soon as possible; however, I think there was agreement. A lot of witnesses came forward and spoke to this particular issue.

In October 2016 I was given the honour by then leader Rona Ambrose to be the critic for veterans affairs. Admittedly, it was a very difficult time, after the 2015 election, to be the critic for veterans affairs. I had a tremendous amount of advice given to me by the former Conservative minister of veterans affairs, Erin O'Toole, on what I needed to do as the new critic at the time.

I immediately embarked on a cross-Canada tour to meet with veterans, their families, stakeholders and advocates. I was very grateful to do that with the member for Yorkton—Melville, with whom I will be splitting my time. She is a great advocate for veterans and their families.

As I went across the country, obviously coming out of the 2015 election, as difficult as that period was, there were a lot of questions posed to me. I did not back away from any of them at all; I faced them head on. I talked to veterans and their families right across the country and explained to them the challenges that had come out of and in advance of the 2015 election.

Many of the people I spoke to were grateful for the types of programs the former Conservative government had put in, but there were some issues. I faced those issues head-on. The one thing that veterans appreciate more than anything else is telling them the truth. Face their questions head on, admit when mistakes were made and do not necessarily take credit for everything; show some humility. Those are some of the things I tried to do.

I have listened to much of the debate this morning, and the blame game is being used in this place. I will say that this is a very toxic place right now; everybody is looking for political positioning. The NDP and the Liberals are 20 to 25 points behind in the polls, so they are looking to attack the Conservatives in any way they can. That is part of it, and I get it.

However, when it comes to veterans and their families, there should be no attacks or partisan games. Veterans and their families can smell it from a mile away. They know when they are being used as political pawns by political parties, and in much of the debate I have heard today, that is happening. Frankly, veterans and their families do not give a flying you-know-what about what people say; it is what they do that matters.

There were difficult times; I admit that now as I did when I was critic for veterans affairs, but the one thing I was with veterans was honest. If there was something that we could do, we did it; if there was something that we could not do, I would tell them why. It was in that spirit that in 2017, after travelling the country and talking to veterans, their families, stakeholders and others, I proposed my private member's bill, Bill C-378, which would have established a military covenant, an obligation between the Crown and our veterans.

I used the example of Great Britain at the time because it was the only Commonwealth country, and the only country in the world in fact, that had established a military covenant. The covenant would have been based on respect and would have obligated not just the government of the day but also governments of the future to prioritize the needs of veterans and their families.

There were many cases I heard about where benefits were not being applied in a fair amount of time, so I was hoping that, by establishing that obligation on the minister, on the government and on future governments, including our government, veterans would have been respected.

The bill dealt with three basic principles; the minister would have to have taken into account, in every act that they undertook, the three principles. The first is that veterans, as well as their families, survivors in the context of what we are talking about today in the so-called gold digger clause, would have been taken into account and been treated with dignity, respect and fairness.

The second principle is that veterans and their duties are unique among Canadians, which I think we can all recognize. There is an obligation to care for veterans because of the sacrifices made by them, and that obligation extends as well to the experience of their families.

The third core principle in the military covenant that I looked to establish through a private member's bill was that the care, treatment and transition of Canadian Armed Forces in and to civilian life would be dealt with in a timely manner.

I have sat on committees and I have been through many Veterans Affairs reports, including the ones involving transition. I think the number, and maybe the member for Yorkton—Melville can correct me, is that there have been about 13 or 14 reports on military members' transitioning into civilian life, but many of the problems are still a problem.

Oftentimes at committees, when witnesses some and make recommendations to the government, the government responds but the reality is that, in many circumstances, nothing gets done. We wonder why veterans and their families are frustrated when consecutive governments do not fulfill their obligation to those veterans. Unfortunately my private member's bill, Bill C-378, which would have established the military covenant, was defeated in 2017. I was extremely disappointed by the fact that we were not able to fulfill that obligation to veterans and their families.

I will remind members again that service extends beyond the battlefield; it is not just about the men and women who are on the front lines protecting our nation, defending peace and security around the world and the rule of law, human rights and human dignities. The service of the families back home, who worry and who are there to support their family while their military member is deployed, in my opinion, is equal to or greater than the member's service and sacrifice itself.

With respect to the clause in question, the report suggested that there were roughly 9,000 people who would be affected by it. It is interesting, because there was a PBO report in 2022 that showed five-year costs would be over $1.3 billion over those five years. The Canada pension plan 2019-2020 annual report indicated that the removal of the clause would be less than a 2% change, or less than $1 billion on an annual basis, of $38.9 billion in payouts.

Let us put that in context in terms of what this nation is spending as far as foreign aid is concerned. Veterans and their families are not unlike anybody else; they see the amount of money that is going towards supporting other nations. They see the amount of waste. They see the amount of money, for example, in the SDTC scandal of $400 million.

They are able to calculate all the numbers and figure it out, and they ask, “Why are we not looking after ourselves? Why are we not looking after, as a matter of priority, our veterans and their families?” when they see announcements of billions and billions of dollars going towards what they would consider, because they have told me this, ideological pet projects.

I believe it is incumbent upon us to look after our veterans, not just by the words that we say but also by the actions that we take. Bill C-378 would have established the military covenant and provided respect and dignity to our veterans. I stand by everything I have done as veterans affairs critic, and I will stand by veterans now and forever.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the temptation for me is to talk about how frustrating it is to not be able to deal with other legislation, in particular a bill about issues going from military courts into civilian courts for military personnel who have been subjected to sexual abuse. That bill would have been a wonderful thing to talk about today.

Having said that, we are spending time talking about our veterans, which is a great issue and something I am exceptionally sympathetic to. The member just mentioned he is quite proud of his record. The leader of the Conservative Party sat around a cabinet table where they actually cut seven veterans' offices across the country. Does he have any regrets in making those cuts?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not make those cuts.

I think I acknowledged the difficulties coming out of the 2015 election that I had to face as critic for veterans affairs. I had to answer many of the questions that were given to me, which I did it honestly and forthrightly, not in a manner that would allow veterans to be told otherwise. It is the only way I can say it.

Veterans can smell it from a mile away. We have to be honest with them. We have to tell them why. They may not agree, and in many cases they do not. However, if we can do something, we tell them that we can do it, and if we cannot do something, we tell them why. Veterans and their families are tired of being used as political pawns. They want to see action on not just the issue before us but on many other issues as well.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely congratulate my colleague and welcome the news about trying to explain why to veterans.

Seventeen years ago, when the Harper government was in place, a gentleman named Walt qualified for a pension. He says:

My stress level is resulting sometimes in restless nights. I'm continually assessing our resources. I want Norma to be able to live in her own home and continue to be an integral part of this community. I want to grant her the benefits of my pension and give us peace of mind. I'm running out of sunsets, and this issue is heavy on my heart.

He waited and is still waiting, almost two decades later. Why is that? Can the member explain to veterans across the country why the Conservatives did not ensure that the survivor's benefit was an option for folks like Norma?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have an answer for that. If I did, I would tell the member. What I can say now, and as I started my speech with, is that with one fell swoop of a pen, the Minister of Veterans Affairs can do anything she wants. Future ministers, with that same pen, can make amends and correct the wrongs of the past. That can be done. The minister has that power; I do not have that power as an individual. However, I can say that I do not disagree with the member on the matter.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the survivor's benefit cannot be transferred if someone decides to get married after they turn 60. This rule is practically antediluvian. I was not even born when it came into effect. My father was not even born then. My grandfather was not even born then. I am not even sure if my great-grandfather was born then.

It is important to understand that, in 1930, a man's life expectancy was 60 years. In 1945, a man's life expectancy was 65 years. Maybe it makes sense that, back then, getting remarried at the end of one's life might raise the government's suspicions, hence not wanting to allow pension transfers under those circumstances.

Today, a man's average life expectancy is around 80 years. Now, 2024 is not 1930, nor is it 1945. Society has evolved both in terms of life expectancy and in terms of lifestyle. I would like to know if my colleague thinks that the government should evolve, too.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Bloc member.

A lot has changed in Canada over the years. That pension rule may have been acceptable in the first part of the last century, but a lot has changed now. People live longer and marry for love. People do not simply get married because someone has come back from the war. Things have changed a lot in this country, which is more modern.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it means a great deal to me to be able to stand in this place today and speak to the issues that are impacting our veterans and, specifically, this one issue.

As the previous speaker mentioned, I had the privilege of being the deputy shadow minister for Veterans Affairs when I first came in as a brand-new member of Parliament, and I was able to travel with my colleague across Canada to ensure that we were really learning and hearing what veterans and what Canadian Armed Forces members had to say. That was in 2015, following 10 years of the previous Conservative government.

I remember being told a great deal about new veterans. They are new veterans, not modern-day veterans, as they hate being called that. The next generation of veterans was very upset with the fact that they came back from Afghanistan to a whole new set of rules around care for them with the new veterans charter, which was created just before the Liberal government fell and was adopted by the entire House without the proper oversight.

Since then, it has been a challenge for veterans to appreciate what the new veterans charter did, and now it has been changed more and more. Conservatives say, if we are going to spend a dollar, we have to take a dollar from somewhere else, but this is just a pile-on of one program after another. It is very confusing for our veterans, and they deserve better than they have.

I can say, as my colleague did, there are things here that need to be put right. I have been on the veterans affairs committee for a decade now. I am into my 10th year. My colleague was absolutely right. We have studied transitioning to death and given recommendations. Witnesses have come and talked about what needs to be done to make this means of taking care of our veterans smooth, transparent and fast, but nothing has changed. If anything, things have gotten more difficult. It shows partially the inability of the National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to work with Veterans Affairs through a seamless transition.

In the government's response to this very issue, it says that the Government of Canada agrees with most of these recommendations. However, it then goes on to explain that:

The Minister of National Defence, under the CFSA, is responsible for the overall management of the pension plan.... In support of the Minister’s role, the Department of National Defence [and] Canadian Armed Forces...are responsible for the oversight of the pension plan, contribution calculations, financial analysis [and all of that].

Then it says the Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the RCMP part, and here is what it says about the Minister of Veterans Affairs: “The Minister of Veterans Affairs has no authority over any superannuation acts.”

The minister has no authority, even though the government made a big to-do about making this a seamless transition and that the departments were going to work well together. The government made the Minister of Veterans Affairs the Associate Minister of National Defence, yet, somehow still, nothing seems to be able to be done to solve a lot of these issues.

I can appreciate the fact that, as the member from the Bloc said, this reflects something from, my goodness, decades ago, when the average age of a man, in general, was 60. Today, I am way past that age. I can tell colleagues that 68 is the new 50, just saying. The truth of the matter is that we are functioning in an archaic environment and not taking care of our veterans the way we should be. As a matter of fact, there is proof of that in the way that veterans are feeling about how they are being cared for.

I have the supplementary estimates that we discussed and spoke with the minister about just recently. This is really important. The government asked for an additional $942.5 million in the supplementary estimates. That is a lot of money.

The bulk of the requested appropriations, the Liberals said, was for pain and suffering compensation applications. It represents an increase of 51.6% compared to what was in the main estimates, so it is a huge jump in funding for pain and suffering. The explanation was that the additional funding is needed to respond to an increase in the number of benefit applications, which includes the pain and suffering, but also higher than expected numbers of veterans who are opting for a lump sum instead of monthly payments.

Huge numbers of veterans are saying, “I'm leaving. I'm getting my pain and suffering. I want it all and I want it now.” They no longer have confidence because of the way the government has treated our Canadian Armed Forces and treated our veterans over the course of these last nine years.

Since the Liberals came into power, what we are seeing and what I hear quietly said over and over again by our veterans is, “Here we are in another decade of darkness.” That is what they called it the last time the Liberals were in power and decimated the Canadian Armed Forces. There is no way that the government is taking care of our veterans. Right off the bat, the government said the veterans were asking for more than it could give, but there is this slush fund. The Liberals have their friends to take care of.

The confidence of our veterans and our armed forces in the government is pretty well nil. As my colleague asked, do we have work to do when we form government shortly? We absolutely do. Do our veterans know that we have not done everything right in the past? They absolutely do, and we are open about that. At the same time, our veterans are facing the same challenges that every Canadian is.

There are veterans' food banks that cannot keep their shelves full because of the need that is out there. There are more veterans who are homeless now, because they cannot afford rent. They cannot afford a home. There are veterans now who are on the street or couch surfing, because they do not have the ability to take care of themselves or their families. They feel guilty, so they have left their homes and their families.

There is no question that our veterans are not being cared for the way they should be. I have had the privilege of being part of the women veterans study, reflecting on the largest study that has ever been done, actually no study was done until this one was done, on our women serving within the armed forces. It is frightening what they have had to go through.

We have a great deal of work to do to improve life for our armed forces, but I can assure members of two things: We will care for them while they are serving, and we will provide what they need to go to war, something that this government pretends it does not have a role in. We will care for our veterans in ways that meet their needs, and when there is a situation where something cannot be done the way that they would want it to be done, we will have our conversations and we will do our best to come to a consensus. There will be true conversations, rather than organizations of veterans groups set up that the government rarely reaches out to, but claims to have that relationship.

I am so pleased to see that we could have the opportunity very shortly to give credence to what we are saying with what we will do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we listen to Conservatives speak on the whole issue of veterans. I could talk about the veterans' offices that they shut down. There were literally nine of them across the country, but what really intrigues me is the fact that this particular member, along with the leader of the Conservative Party, and in fairness she did not have a choice as she has to follow her leader, actually voted against supports for veterans. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

Can the member tell us why she votes against them? On a side point, why did she agree with her leader to shut down nine veterans' offices across the country?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased. I was worried that the member would not ask me that question. Here is the truth that needs to be shared in the House, which veterans know. When we took government and had to deal with the extreme load of debt of the previous government, we went to every department and said that we needed them to help out and to please inform us of where cuts could be made. I think it was 5% with Veterans Affairs. We would then respond to that. The decision to cut those nine offices came from the bureaucracy of Veterans Affairs.

I can tell the member that in my city of Regina, I went to the office when they reopened it. The bulletproof glass was there. The lights were all off. I knocked on the glass, trying to get someone's attention. Finally, someone came. I said that I was the new member for Yorkton—Melville and that I would love to come and just thank them for what they are doing.

Do we know what? My veterans asked why they did not leave it where they put it, in the mall. We could—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I was too optimistic there.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith every question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion that the question be now put.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given this important report, to broaden respect and services for veterans, respecting their spouses, we would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Climate Change

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to represent my constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, acknowledging that I work on the territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ people, today standing on the lands of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people. I acknowledge their extraordinary generosity and patience.

Petitioners have asked me to present the following, calling to the House's attention that Canada is legally bound by the terms of the Paris Agreement to seek to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The government must take, according to the petitioners, bold climate action to ensure that we play our part to avoid runaway climate change.

The petitioners urge the government to set more ambitious targets so that we have any hope of holding to 1.5°C, and work with provinces for the combined efforts, federally and provincially, to reduce greenhouse gases dramatically.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to be as brief as possible:

We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following:

Whereas:

Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians recommended expanding euthanasia—

—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, we are not supposed to be reading petitions into the record.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to make sure that we are summarizing the petitions that we are presenting.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are calling on Canada to do the following: because Louis Roy of the Quebec college of physicians recommended expanding euthanasia to babies, from birth to one year of age, who come into the world with severe deformities or very serious syndromes, this proposal for the legalized killing of infants is deeply disturbing to many Canadians, and infanticide is always wrong. These citizens are calling on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children. This will probably take a new government.

Falun Gong

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in regard to the Falun Gong. It is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline, consisting of meditation exercises and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. We are very concerned about the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is persecuting practitioners extensively.

Canadian lawyer David Matas and former Canadian secretary of state for Asia-Pacific David Kilgour have investigated and they have information on that. The Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting has over 1.5 million petition signatures. The European Parliament has passed a resolution condemning this behaviour.

Therefore, they are requesting that the Canadian government pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime, amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and to publicly, if the government would, please, call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.