Catherine Bell

[National Peacekeepers’ Day Act, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-287, an act respecting a national peacekeepers' day. Specifically, the act would make August 9 national peacekeepers' day and calls for the lowering of the Canadian flag on the Peace Tower to half mast on that day.

In the preamble of the bill, it talks about a great Canadian, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, who proposed the first United Nations peacekeeping mission. Mr. Pearson won a Nobel Prize for his actions. Those actions moved Canada to the forefront in the world and our country became the leader in keeping the peace with more than 100,000 members of the Canadian Forces participating in peacekeeping and peace support missions, along with many members of Canadian police services.

The preamble also talks about the reasons for choosing August 9. August 9 was the day in 1974 that nine Canadian Forces' peacekeepers were killed when their plane was shot down en route to Damascus from Beirut. When this bill passes, as I am sure it will since I know everyone in this House respects our peacekeepers, on the ninth day of the ninth month of every year, the flag on the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill will be lowered to half mast to honour not only those nine who lost their lives, but every peacekeeper before or since, either living or dead, who has served or is serving this country so bravely for such a noble cause.

Let me talk about those women and men who serve our country in many capacities within the military. I have a military base in my riding and I have spoken of it on numerous occasions, CFB Comox. I have had the pleasure on several occasions to enjoy the hospitality of the 19 Wing Commander, as well as other officers, their staff and employees at the base.

One of the first things we learn when we visit the base is the military ethos: “Duty with Honour”. We learn about the pride that they take in their roles serving our country. 19 Wing Comox has a rich history dating back to 1942 when the base was constructed. It was constructed to protect the strategic Pacific coastline in the second world war. Today, its two operational squadrons fly the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, the Buffalo search and rescue aircraft and the Cormorant helicopters.

Using the five Aurora airplanes, the pilot and crews of the 407 Maritime Patrol Squadron spend long hours on surveillance missions over the ocean looking for illegal fishing, migration, drugs and pollution, in addition to foreign submarines. They can also perform search and rescue missions using air droppable survival kits.

With six Buffalo aircraft and five Cormorant helicopters, 442 Transport and Rescue Squadron carries out search and rescue operations in the busiest region in Canada. It is a very vast region. As we can see on a map, the area stretches from the B.C.-Washington border to the Arctic and from the Rocky Mountains to 1,200 kilometres out into the Pacific Ocean.

In addition to its operational squadrons, the Wing is home to 19 air maintenance squadrons and a national training school, the Canadian Forces School of Search and Rescue. 19 Wing also supports cadet training at the Regional Cadet Gliding School at HMCS Quadra sea cadet camp. I might add that my young nephew, Gibson, is a proud sea cadet at HMCS Quadra and we are all very proud of him.

The men and women who join our military do so because they want to serve our country. They are proud to do the job we ask them to do. They are honoured to serve their country and I am honoured to have met many of them and to see first-hand their commitment to making the world a better place to live. Many of those women and men join for the exciting career opportunities, many of which I have just mentioned in my overview of 19 Wing Comox. Many of those professions are provided in our military services.

Many of the men and women who join the forces do so because Canada is a world leader in keeping the peace. But our boots on the ground are losing ground. Canada was once a top 10 contributor of military personnel to United Nations missions. Now we rank 50th out of 95 countries. Less than one-tenth of 1% of the military personnel participating in UN missions are Canadian. Since 2001 our spending commitment to UN operations has only been $214.2 million of the over $6 billion on all international missions. That is a mere 3% for peacekeeping.

Sadly, Canada is not alone in having virtually abandoned UN peacekeeping. Most of the western aligned middle power states now contribute very little to UN missions. While Canada ranks eighth in military contributions among the 26 NATO member countries, there are eight non-NATO countries that each contribute more military personnel to UN operations than do all the NATO members combined.

This sends a very strong signal to the rest of the world that Canada no longer takes the same amount of pride in peacekeeping that it once did. It sends the message that war-torn countries looking for help from the UN should not count on Canada for much support. It also sends the message to those women and men who are so bravely serving as peacekeepers that the work they are doing in other countries so far away is not as important as other military commitments where we are spending much more money.

I know that the role of peacekeepers has changed considerably since its inception. I also do not have my head buried in the sand about the dangers of the missions we send our peacekeepers into. I know that they sometimes have to use force, sometimes even kill, or sadly are killed, defending the peace and security of the area they are tasked to defend.

That does not mean the idea of peacekeeping is a thing of the past. We cannot, we must not, lose sight of what everyone in this world ultimately wants: to live in peace and security, to live without war and strife. It is an age-old dream and one which we must never stop working toward.

That is why it is so important to make sure we are giving our military and peacekeepers the tools they need to do the job that we ask them to do. Some of those tools are tangible, such as tanks, airplanes, ships, guns, clothing, food and other necessities, but also support when they are at home, decent wages and benefits, adequate housing, social supports in the communities and supports for families when the parents are deployed.

There are some things that money just cannot buy, and that is knowing that at the end of the day the duty of peacekeepers is honoured by all Canadians. They serve us so proudly, so bravely. They pay the ultimate sacrifice. It is the least we can do by honouring them.

[SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley lives in an area similar to mine and he has many of the same issues. His riding is also surrounded by forest, water and beautiful scenery. I know he understands very well what the impacts are on industry and workers in his community.

The message the government sends to individuals, workers, communities and small business is that it really does not care what anyone thinks. Unfortunately, we will not hear their voices. They were shut out of the hearings and coming to the committee. This very bad deal, which will affect them in such an adverse way, basically tells them that they do not matter in society. To me, that is absolutely the wrong way to go.

It is time we stood up for our industry in Canada. Small business is the backbone of our country and we need to recognize that. We need to support it and ensure that the value added sector is able to thrive. We do not need to put restrictions on its ability to trade and get its product out. It is ludicrous. We want to ensure that the industry can do business, employ people and keep our communities going.

I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for interest and commitment to his community.

[SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that can be done, the first of which is for the House defeat this ill-advised bill. Once that is done, members can use their wins at every level, especially the final win, which said that Canada was owed every penny of the $5 billion plus taken in illegal tariffs over the many years that this dispute lingered. That money should come back to Canada. The government would then be in a very good start and end position to ensure that our industry would get the money back so it could re-tool some mills to ensure we could do the value added here.

There is probably more we can do with regard to our natural resource forestry policy, which would see us maintain our forests for the benefits of Canadians. That is not to say we want to stop trade, but we want to ensure the trade is done in the interests of Canadian communities, industry and jobs.

[SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again standing in the House reminding Canadians what a bad deal the softwood agreement is for Canada and for Canadian forestry workers. My friend from Winnipeg was very clear in his comments and reminders to the Canadian public.

I first acknowledge the hard work and determination of one individual in the House, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. The member has been tireless in his efforts at the committee, bringing forward amendment after amendment and speaking for hours, trying to get the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc to understand what is happening in forest dependent communities across the country and why forestry workers are opposed to this very bad deal. However, all of his amendments were shot down by the other parties, amendments that attempted, in a strong way, to make a very bad deal marginally better. We knew it would not improve it much, but at least he tried.

On behalf of the many forestry workers in my riding and across the country, I thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his commitment and for standing up in the House for Canadian jobs. It is something we do not see enough of, and that is what we are talking about here.

The Conservatives could have used our wins at the NAFTA and WTO tribunals as a bargaining chip to get full redress for Canadian companies and Canadian jobs. Let me once again remind us all that Canada won at every trade dispute, including the ruling on October 13, a mere month ago. The ruling confirmed that Canada was close to a decisive victory, as we had said. My colleagues have been pointing this out for a couple of years now. Instead the Conservative government sold us out. The Conservatives took those wins and they negotiated them away, which is ludicrous. It almost makes me speechless, but I will talk anyway.

These American tariffs have now been struck down by the U.S. courts as well as NAFTA panels, but under this deal Canadian industry will be paying more in punitive tariffs, not less, and that is a shame.

I come from the labour movement. If I were at the bargaining table and negotiated away a huge settlement for the members who I represented, I do not think I would be representing them much longer. In fact, I am sure they would be calling for my demise.

I have to wonder, as many of my constituents do, what was the rush to settle in this way. When we were so close to winning and we knew it, why would we negotiate that settlement away? I know we all wanted to see an end to this trade dispute, but after so many years of stalling by the Liberals, with no negotiations, nothing going on, why would the Conservatives sell Canada out so quickly? Surely they must have known that we were about to win the final victory. It really shows an incredible lack of foresight on their part.

The deal discourages value added production in Canada. The export taxes are based on the value of the exported product. This is why so many forestry workers in my riding and across the country do not support the deal. They see the end of their jobs and their communities and they are very concerned. It is no wonder that in my riding, and probably in other ridings where there are forest dependent communities, we are seeing a massive increase in the export of raw logs and jobs.

Hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of logs are exported every day out of the north island. This means the end of jobs and the closure of mills. Communities are suffering as a result of this. It is a travesty, to say the least, that the communities, which are surrounded by forest, do not see any of the jobs related to them except the cutting down of trees. We support those jobs. Those people also understand and support the workers from the mills who are losing their jobs. Therefore, it is not a question of one worker pitted against the other. Most workers understand what is going on. I know the people who work in the bush and cut down the trees, the fellers, are very supportive of the mill workers and would love to see the communities thrive and grow.

I will talk a little about some of the small communities that I represent in Vancouver Island North, forestry communities that are struggling to make ends meet after their sawmills have closed because there is no value added. Also fishing communities are struggling with unemployment because they cannot get enough fish to keep their processing plants going. It is the same scenario in another industry.

These were once thriving communities. They are surrounded by oceans and forests, yet the bounty of these resource is heading south out of the country across the border to the U.S. or other parts of the world to be processed. This represents the loss of jobs and communities at a devastating level. It does not seem that there is any commitment on the part of the government to maintain these value added jobs in our communities any more.

The impact that it has on the people in those communities is devastating. They are in crisis. Their homes are devalued. They cannot afford to move, but they cannot afford to stay either, especially if they have children and the schools and the hospitals close. There are no services left and all the other businesses leave as well, and they become ghost towns.

To add insult to injury, because it is such a beautiful area and it is surrounded by the forests and the oceans, when homes sell in a lot of those little towns, at a very low price I might add, they are usually to wealthy Americans, looking for a cheap vacation home. It is a slap in the face to those workers, unfortunately.

It is not that we are against the U.S. and it is not that we are against trade. We want to stand up for Canadians, for our communities and for Canadian jobs. I thought it was our job, as members of Parliament, to stand up for our communities and to make good public policy that respects our resources, our jobs and our communities. I thought that is why we came here. Therefore, I am glad to speak on this ill-advised bill and hopefully convince members in all parties to stand with us and oppose this very bad deal.

I want to talk specifically about one industry that is struggling, a very small value added flooring industry in my community, in the Comox Valley. It is an environmentally sustainable industry. It goes out to get waste wood out of the forest after the logging companies have been there. Whatever is left on the forest floor, whether it is alder, cedar, maple and fir, it makes flooring out of it. It is a fabulous little business. It is doing so well, employing a few people in the valley. Unfortunately, it has been hit with high tariffs on the value added. It is losing over $300,000 a year. For a small business, that is devastating.

The owner is wondering now how he can survive. He cannot set his prices with any certainty because he does not know what the cost will be in the future, and his market is mainly the U.S. He is really struggling with this. It is for him also that I speak, and other businesses. He is just one voice, but I know he has been representing others in opposing this deal. Not only forestry workers are suffering under this very bad deal, but small manufacturing is as well.

All the forestry workers and small lumber companies wanting to have their say are never going to be heard now. There were going to be hearings. The international trade committee had agreed to have hearings across the country. We were looking forward to having a hearing in Vancouver. Many of the companies and workers from my area were going to be witnesses. They wanted to tell the committee and all parties about how they would be impacted by the deal. However, those voices are never going to be heard because the hearings were shut down.

Unfortunately, another piece of our democracy has been taken away from us because we will not hear those voices. It is another tragedy. They want to tell their stories. They are really concerned about what is happening with the country, not only with the resource but with the our communities as well. I think it would have been valuable for all members of the House to have heard the impacts of this very bad deal at the ground level where people live. That is the most important thing that we can do in the House.

Again, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for his great work on the committee. He has done an exemplary job.

I would like all members in the House to pay attention to what is going on in small communities across the country. The resource industries are the backbone of our country and it is time we respected them.

[Petitions, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to present is signed by many people from across the country, but mostly from British Columbia.

The petitioners call upon the government to recognize that high quality child care is a benefit to all children and ask Parliament to achieve multi-year funding to ensure that publicly operated child care programs are sustainable for the long term and in a national child care act, much the same as the national health act.

The petitioners also call upon the government to help end poverty by ensuring that the $1,200 allowance to enhance the child tax benefit is not taxed and not clawed back.

[Petitions, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions in the House. The first petition was signed by many residents from across the country but mostly from Vancouver Island.

The petitioners call upon the government to recognize that communities and ecosystems around the world are suffering from global climate change through warmer weather, more extreme weather patterns, warmer waters and rising sea levels.

They ask the government to recognize that the impact of climate change will become catastrophic unless we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions immediately, that Parliament honour its legal commitment to the Kyoto protocol and to further pledge to reduce Canada's gas emissions by 30% below the 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% by 2050.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in this very important issue, which affects so many families across the country.

Absolutely, I believe an ombudsman is crucial in this debate and I look forward to the implementation of that position.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his many long years of service to our country. It is because of people like him that we are able to stand in the House today and have our say and discuss issues in this democracy.

I know military families had to uproot and travel across the country. They did not have the same opportunities as some others or were denied those opportunities. They quite often were the sole breadwinner in their families because of having to move around the country. In some cases they were unable to collect EI at the end of their term if they collected other benefits.

I want to remind the hon. member that the motion does not seek retroactivity in this instance. We are seeking to ensure that military families have fairness and justice with respect to their income and pensions on a go forward basis.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West.

I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. I know my hon. colleague has been working many long years for fairness and justice for working families in his riding and across this country. By bringing forward this motion, which I urge all members of this House to support, we can make sure that Canadian Forces retirees, veterans and their families are treated fairly with respect to their pensions.

This is an important issue across this country and especially in my riding of Vancouver Island North where in the Comox Valley is one of the largest military bases in the country, CFB Comox. I have heard from many of my constituents about this issue, so it is with respect to them and for them that I speak to this motion today.

CFB Comox has brought many military families to the area, and I have had the pleasure of getting to know many of them and getting to know their families. While they were in the service in this area many made a decision to come back when they retired and live in this spectacular area with its natural beauty and mild climate. The Comox Valley is the southernmost part of my riding. We boast that one can ski all morning on Mount Washington, golf in the afternoon at one of the many world class golf courses, and go for a sail in the evening to enjoy one of our beautiful west coast sunsets.

Because of this natural beauty and the availability of so many outdoor activities, as well as thriving urban areas, many military families have chosen to retire in this area. Just think: there is little or no snow to shovel in the winter and there is no need for air conditioners in the summer because of the cool ocean breezes. Some people might call it paradise. What a wonderful place to retire.

This very important motion seeks to improve the lives of veterans and retired military personnel in five ways:

First, it seeks to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act so that second spouses of Canadian Forces members and veterans have access to pensions upon the death of the member or veteran. I believe the practice of disallowing the second spouse access to the pension is affectionately known, or maybe not so affectionately known, as the “gold digger clause”. It has a long history dating back to the Boer War. My great-grandfather was in that war and many things have changed since then. This practice of disallowing the second spouse access to a pension is insulting and discriminatory. It supposes that anyone marrying a retired Canadian Forces member is only doing it for the money.

The practice of disallowing a survivor pension to women or men who marry retired Canadian Forces members after the age of 60 unfairly penalizes the surviving spouse. Not only does the survivor lose pension benefits, but also health and dental benefits are stripped at a time when they are most needed.

Second, this motion seeks to extend the veterans independence program to all widows of all veterans, regardless of the time of death of the veteran and regardless of whether the veteran was in receipt of VIP services prior to his or her death. This national home care program is so important to maintaining the health and independence of veterans and their spouses. It could be seen as independent living which is something that many people in their senior years require to stay out of hospitals and institutions.

Widows whose husbands have died before 1981 are not eligible, nor are those whose husbands did not receive VIP benefits prior to their death. Again, this is a discriminatory practice. Many of these women have cared for their partners in their homes for many years, assisting them with day to day living, with their daily personal care, saving the health care system thousands of precious dollars while sacrificing their very own lives. I do not think it is too much to ask that when they become eligible for VIP services that they receive them.

Third, this motion seeks to increase the survivor's pension amount upon death of a Canadian Forces retiree to 66% from the current 50%. Why is it, I ask, that survivors of Canadian Forces retirees receive only 50% of superannuation when survivors of other public service workers receive 66%?

This is a sad way to say thank you to the many years of service our military commit to this country. I know that everyone in the House supports our military when they are serving this country so bravely, so why not after they retire? I know that they would want their surviving spouses to be taken care of with respect and dignity and with economic dignity.

This is another example of an outdated, unfair, discriminatory practice whose time has come to an end. It is time to stop treating retired military families as second class citizens. Spouses of Canadian Forces personnel deserve fair access to pension benefits and spousal benefits.

Fourth, this motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore asks the government to eliminate the unfair reduction of the service income security insurance plan long term disability benefits for medically released members of the Canadian Forces. Under the SISIP LTD, Canadian Forces members are guaranteed 75% of their previous salaries for up to two years if they are disabled in service, but when a former Canadian Forces member receives disability payments from Veterans Affairs or any other money under the Pension Act, SISIP LTD is clawed back. This is another unfairness.

This unfairness places a financial hardship on the disabled member. The Veterans Affairs disability pension should not be considered as income. Disability benefits are to compensate for injuries suffered in the line of duty. I know that disabled members in my riding are finding it hard to make ends meet because of this punitive policy. In the new veterans charter this policy has been eliminated, but those who became disabled prior to the veterans charter still face an offset in their SISIP LTD.

Last, the motion seeks to eliminate the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled Canadian Forces members. This clawback of military and RCMP pension when they receive CPP or CPP disability creates a real financial hardship at a time when they need the most support. Everyone in this House knows that as we age, our health care needs increase.

My colleague has introduced other private members' bills in the past, specifically Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (elimination of deduction from annuity). That is what we are talking about here today.

Veterans groups across the country have been calling on the government to eliminate this clawback of their pensions. I have received many letters from military retirees and members still serving telling me how they feel about this important issue. I would like to share some of those with the House now.

As one member told me:

There is no better Canadian than the men and women who serve and they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity in their golden years, and not be penalized at a time when their country feels they can make a quick buck on their backs. At a time when they are living on a fixed income and at a time when they should feel the support of their country not to feel as though they have been wronged by a government who can easily forget their past deeds and services.

This is from another serviceman:

Why are we treated as second class citizens. After 40 years serving Canada in the Military I am denied what I invested in.

The frustration and hurt felt by those people is apparent. They have served this country bravely. They have contributed to our communities during their working lives. They have endured dangerous conditions and long separations from their families. The stresses of these jobs are enormous. These things take a toll on one's physical and mental health.

It is just one more way of showing support for the men and women who serve to make sure they are taken care of in their retirement.

I urge all members of Parliament to support this crucial motion that will do so much for retired military members and their families.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nunavut for a very moving and informative scenario of what life is like in the north. Something we sometimes forget to add to the dialogue in this House is the human element and how the decisions we make affect people in their day to day lives. I found her remarks very interesting.

She talked about the costs not always being monetary costs, but being the cost in waiting and the cost in inconvenience that a lot of people in the north experience that we in the south do not. I want to ask her if the small costs in savings for the government will outweigh the personal human costs. Will this make things better? I wonder if she could comment a bit more on this.