Annick Papillon

[Veterans, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in the House and to close all these debates at a rather late hour and to speak to a subject that I am passionate about. It is an important issue. I am talking about veterans. These people sacrificed themselves for us. They gave everything. They went to where no one wanted to go. They served our country to the best of their ability. They truly gave everything.

On March 7, I asked a very clear question in the House. I asked the following:

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada will not affect the quality of services provided.

Everyone knows that it is not possible to do more with less. Doing more with less is not possible.

On page 11, the Report on Plans and Priorities states that:...there is a risk that quality service delivery could be affected due to VAC's increasing reliance on partners and service providers in the federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as private sector.Why is the minister making decisions that are bad for our veterans?

Why are they trying to balance the budget in times of so-called austerity? Whey are they trying to save money at the expense of those who served our country, at the expense of veterans?

Even during times of austerity, the United States and Great Britain did not make as many cuts as this Conservative government has made to Veterans Affairs. The current government does not understand what needs to be done for our veterans. However, every year the ombudsman's report is very clear. The report says that we need to invest in front-line services for our veterans. The Conservatives seem to toss each report on a shelf, as they do with any report, and ignore what it says until something very bad happens.

If you look at the news, you can see that our veterans are facing far too much hardship. However, here, in the House, is where decisions are made. Where will we send our veterans? What will we do for them? Even if we make these decisions for them, we cannot later take them back and give them all the services they need, such as appropriate health care specialists or physical and psychological health care.

The NDP is flabbergasted that this government is doing absolutely nothing for our veterans. The needs and expectations are there. We hope that this government will take action.

Could my colleague opposite tell us that the Conservatives will change course and will finally invest, because we have invested in veterans, and that makes complete sense in light of the sacrifice they made.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to speak late in the evening and even more so to wake up everyone in the House and everyone who is watching to say that, at this time, we are debating Bill C-20, with respect to the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Unfortunately, before I get into the specifics, I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised to see that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are participating as they should be. I am surprised but, at the same time, not so much. In fact, that is what is really happening here in Ottawa. They are not present. They say they will be in the House to participate in the debate and share ideas so that together we can properly represent Canadians, but they are not here. Only the NDP is here and it has not missed a single opportunity to speak. The New Democrats have always been here and we will sit day and night. We did it when we arrived in 2011. I arrived in 2011 and, in the first weeks, we sat day and night.

As for me, I will not fall asleep when the interests of Canadians are at stake. I will participate in the debate and fiercely defend their interests, because that is what democracy is all about. It is good that we can have this exchange when people from different parties are present. They can bring their points of view, we can bring ours, and we can strike a certain balance and find ways to really improve things, to really improve bills. I see that the Conservative government is there, and that it is not moving, not speaking and closing it eyes and ears. It is not moving and I find that unfortunate. It makes no sense. I think that the Conservatives have sunk very low.

What the NDP wants in this Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is very simple. New Democrats want to assure Canadians that we realize how important trade is to our economy. We support increasing trade opportunities and we support Canadian exporters. However, this obviously needs to be done with human, environmental and social rights in mind, and we must ensure that the agreement benefits both countries. That is what is truly important. We also want to see more trade agreements with countries that honour Canadian values and sign trade agreements that truly benefit the Canadian economy.

New Democrats want to implement a strategic trade policy in order to restart multilateral negotiations and sign agreements with developed countries that have high standards or that are implementing high standards. I am talking about countries such as Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. These are all countries with which Canada should sign trade agreements, not countries like Honduras, where drug trafficking goes on with near impunity, where human rights are regularly violated, where democracy is in jeopardy and virtually absent, and where low standards will certainly harm our Canadian companies.

We believe there are three fundamentally important criteria that we should use in assessing trade agreements. I will not reinvent the wheel; it is very simple. First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If not, is the partner trying to achieve these objectives? That is something we need to ask, and this objective is not met in this agreement. Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada? Once again, this objective is not met in this free trade agreement. Third, are the terms of this proposed agreement satisfactory? I do not think so. The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras does not meet any of these three criteria.

Since Honduras is not a democratic country with adequate standards and institutions, since it represents little strategic interest to Canada, and since it is home to serious human rights violations, the majority of Canadians would certainly be opposed to giving this country preferential trade conditions.

Several interveners agree with the NDP and support our position. For example, Sheila Katz, a representative of the Americas Policy Group, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, had this to say when she appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 22, 2013:

The Americas Policy Group has recommended that Canada refrain from concluding free trade agreements with countries that have poor democratic governance and human rights records.

...Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009...is another example of Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured, and killed. The Americas Policy Group is concerned that Canada has validated this regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach and signing a free trade agreement with Honduras in spite of its human rights record.

In Quebec, in my riding, Lawyers Without Borders has done exceptional work. I know that they were on a mission from November 21 to 26, 2013. They issued this press release:

...the executive director of Lawyers Without Borders Canada, Pascal Paradis, along with approximately 10 other dignitaries and representatives of international human rights organizations, took part in a mission organized by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). The purpose of the mission was to observe whether human rights violations occurred during the general election held on Sunday, November 24.

In a press release issued on November 25...the mission reported a number of irregularities that it felt tainted the process and could discredit the results. The mission also made several recommendations to Honduran authorities and the international community.

I also have a comment from Neil Reeder, director general of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's Latin America and Caribbean Bureau:

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, with 65% of its people living in poverty. It suffers from extremely unequal income distribution. The country also suffers from social inequality, high unemployment, poor health and education. More than 60% of all Hondurans are highly vulnerable to food insecurity.

I could go on, but I know that I do not have a lot of time. I could speak at length about people who have concerns about this free trade agreement with Honduras.

When I look at the government, I get the impression that it collects agreements just for the fun of bragging about signing so many free trade agreements. These agreements essentially represent a very small percentage of our trade. Contrary to what the Conservatives say, it is not really worth it, but they keep bragging and signing. We will not find out the consequences of our actions until later—the consequences of this Conservative government that has no idea what it is doing. It does things with its eyes closed, without listening to experts: the Canadians who travel abroad and report back these types of incidents.

I invite the Conservatives to stand up in the House and speak so that we can finally have a debate. The important thing in the House of Commons is to debate.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. She raised the major elements of this free trade agreement.

I am talking here about the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. We know that many free trade agreements have been signed. I have a feeling that these deals are like figurines and that the Conservatives absolutely want the whole collection. However, they do not realize that an agreement has to be negotiated, particularly according to the specific conditions of both countries. This deal does not have the conditions required for an effective free trade agreement.

Unfortunately, right now, Honduras is not showing any progress in terms of improving its record on human rights, labour rights, environment rights and indigenous rights.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this, because these considerations are not reflected in the agreement, which, on top of that, does not have any economic benefits.

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his wonderful comments and the figures he shared. It makes absolutely no sense to invest in websites and all kinds of things that do nothing to help veterans who are struggling.

When the Minister of Veterans Affairs turned his back on Jenifer Migneault when she was asking for help, it was because he had ignored the claims of veterans for hours, which is very sad.

I think it is important to point out that we all come from different parties and have different ideas. That is a good thing, but the veterans affairs file is a profoundly human issue. It is a human issue. It should never be a partisan one. We should not tear ourselves apart over this. We need to help our future, help our veterans.

I think it is disgusting that the government is investing in war machines and CF-18 replacements that will cost a fortune, but it is not able to invest in the human beings who operate that equipment. That makes no sense. It is absolutely ridiculous.

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a fool. I understand exactly what they are telling me.

They are saying that they are going to save some money on the backs of veterans. I am sorry, but we decided to send them on missions. We know that these missions can be costly and we know in what state our soldiers can return. If we are not able to invest in giving them the care they deserve when they get back, then we are not in a position to say that we can accomplish the mission.

I am sorry, but we need to be there for our veterans. I would agree that we have made some advances in terms of the professional transition aspect, but this bill is simply a way to distract people, when I am talking about something very important.

What is important is the health of our veterans, and the Conservative government does not seem to want to go there, because it knows that it will cost money. Yes, it will cost money, but we do not have a choice.

We decided to send them to Afghanistan and on other missions. We simply have to pay. That is how it is. Period.

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the fabulous member for Saint-Jean.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, for our veterans. This bill, like its predecessor, Bill C-11, is a response to the many criticisms made by veterans' groups and the ombudsman himself of the government's career transition services.

I am very familiar with these criticisms, having been the deputy critic for veterans affairs during the first year of my mandate, having remained close to our veterans ever since, and having always lent them an ear. It is important to me that their sacrifice be honoured and that they never be forgotten or ignored.

Unlike the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I will not turn my back on veterans or soldiers, especially when they want my attention. I want to take this opportunity to extend warm greetings to the veterans in Quebec City and particularly the Royal Canadian Legion, which does exceptional work in Quebec City.

Bill C-27 does not measure up to veterans’ expectations, and yet their demands are clear. They want front-line services. They want services, just as they served their country. They went where no one wanted to go because the government asked them to, and today all they want is for the government to understand that when some soldiers return from a mission, they find it difficult to get back into the labour force.

Some soldiers have no choice but to become veterans rather quickly because they were wounded while on duty, either physically or psychologically. Let me say again that they do not choose to become veterans. It is important to understand that a wounded soldier will go through a period of genuine mourning for what he or she has lost.

Whether it is a soldier whose leg was shattered into a million pieces by an explosive device, a solider suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or a soldier suffering from an unexplained health problem, that soldier will grieve the loss of his former health. Accepting and adjusting to a new reality is an arduous, lengthy process.

That is why services are critically important and why Veterans Affairs Canada needs staff to help veterans get through this difficult time in their lives. Soldiers, unlike civilians, have been programmed. The government has a responsibility to invest resources into deprogramming them.

When the federal government opts to send our military members on either a combat or a peacekeeping mission, it has a responsibility to look out for their welfare before, during and after the mission. Experts, in particular experts in the field of health care, must be hired, something the government is not doing. If it were hiring these experts, we would not be reading all the time about soldiers and veterans committing suicide because they failed to get the help they needed. It has come to that.

My colleague opposite claims that a government has never done so much for veterans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Veterans and the Canadian public know that. Truth be told, never has a government done so little for our veterans.

Bill C-27 will in no way help veterans experiencing problems transition smoothly into another career. The vast majority of them do not have the degrees required to secure a job in the public service. It might take them a very long time to get these degrees. Others are simply not interested in a public service job, and it may well be that a given prospective job is not suited to the veteran’s new health situation.

A veteran has some good days and some not-so-good days.

A veteran’s health can be quite precarious. It can be good one day, and poor the next. Drugs can of course alleviate the pain and side effects, but there are no guarantees.

On June 20, 2000, former Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire was rushed to emergency after being found on a park bench in Hull. Inebriated and suffering from a reaction to anti-depressants, he almost slipped into a coma. This proved to be a wake-up call for the civilian world and an introduction to PTSD. We do not want to turn back the clock to that time when PTSD was unknown and left untreated. It is time to acknowledge the situation and allocate the resources needed to address the problem.

I have read a great deal about PTSD. I have also met personally with many veterans suffering from PTSD. I know they are struggling constantly to live in the present. They need to be able to count on having reliable and effective resources at their disposal, especially since soldiers may experience PTSD episodes only later, be it two years or twenty years after an actual mission. There is no way of knowing for certain.

On August 26, 2013, the Veterans Ombudsman released a report that focused on vocational training for veterans transitioning to civilian life. None of the ombudsman’s recommendations is included in this bill. The same goes for recommendations made by the Auditor General in the fall of 2012.

The NDP is of the opinion that the Conservative government should implement, not shelve, the ombudsman’s recommendations. It is really shameful to see a report, whether it comes from an ombudsman or from the Transportation Safety Board, shelved because of Conservative ideology, especially when it had the backing of all political parties in a parliamentary committee and was followed up on. It is truly a shame and it makes no sense at all!

Ombudsmen are appointed to prepare reports so that the government can listen to the concerns of all elected officials in the House. It is truly awful, shameful and disgusting to have these reports produced year after year, only to see the Conservatives scrap or completely ignore the recommendations put forward and then scrambling to backtrack. It is crazy really. A responsible government does not act this way.

What upsets me even more is that the government deliberately decided to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. It decided to make major budget cutbacks that directly affect our veterans, something that London or even Washington did not dare do, even in times of belt-tightening.

This really comes as no surprise, since we are dealing with an irresponsible Conservative government that still cannot account for $3.1 billion in anti-terrorism funding. More than a year later, the money is still unaccounted for. Where is the explanation? How were these missing $3.1 billion spent? The government has not been able to shed light on this mystery and yet it has no problem making cuts that affect veterans.

This Conservative government lacks the courage it should have. It is unable to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with all of the relevant information when it announces budget cuts, proving in the process that these cuts are made hastily and haphazardly, completely in the dark. That is how the Conservatives govern. How truly terrible is that.

This is where we find ourselves in 2014, with a Conservative, or should I say Reform-minded, government. It should be ashamed of proposing half-measures that will have no real impact on the quality of life of veterans in general. It should be ashamed of its actions. Having served for quite a while on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I know what could be done in terms of long-term health care for veterans. They could be given access to improved follow-up services and receive help from specialists. I am also thinking about the work that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is not doing.

Decent pensions should be granted so that veterans are not forced to make repeated requests until they finally receive the full benefits to which they are entitled.

I find it truly offensive to treat people who chose to sacrifice their lives for us in this manner.

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my hon. colleague speak about Bill C-27, I was thinking it was quite incredible to force veterans to return to the labour market when they might not all be ready to do so. That really is a key point.

The government is trying to confuse people with Bill C-27. Once again, it has set aside the recommendations of the veterans ombudsman. They have been set aside several years in a row. People told me that this made no sense and that the government should see that, year after year, a report was issued and included the same recommendations every time, calling for more services and more care for veterans. The government is setting it aside today and distracting us with Bill C-27, which is not at all up to expectations.

I really would like to hear from my colleague on this. Can he tell us what we expect from this Conservative government and what we would like it to do?

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is here to point out that he was not in Quebec City last Wednesday.

Something tremendous happened in Quebec City last Wednesday: the opening at the Citadelle of the second-largest museum, the museum concerned with Canadian heritage and francophone military heritage. That jewel is also the residence of the Governor General.

The minister was not at that very important event, which was attended by hundreds of guests. Instead he sent a message by fax. He did not even send a federal government representative to such an important event organized to acknowledge our veterans. I was the only federal government representative there. I will always be there for our veterans.

When they need our help, we must make calls, go and see them and listen to them. The first thing they ask of us is that we listen to them. Then we see whether we can help them.

I invite the minister to take a step in that direction.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to present a petition that seeks to fight human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

GIven that human trafficking is the third-largest criminal trade after drugs and weapons trafficking, the petition is calling on the government to take action.

[Employment, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the job market has not bounced back since the 2008 crisis.

In fact, we are still 300,000 jobs shy of pre-crisis employment levels, and the Conservatives still do not have a plan for stimulating the economy. What is more, they decided to get rid of the hiring credit for small business. Small businesses create good jobs. Everybody knows that.

Why do the Conservatives not want to understand that and act accordingly?