Chris Alexander

[National Defence, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our government is procuring the best aircraft in the world right now for the Royal Canadian Air Force. We are doing so to fulfill a very important mission: protecting Canada's sovereignty and carrying out overseas missions with our NATO allies, missions like the one in Libya.

This project, which will result in the acquisition of aircraft in a few years, is moving ahead as part of a joint plan with our allies, and we are very proud of it.

[Search and Rescue, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on this side we do not expect the member opposite to show respect for the dedication of this minister, from taking part in training missions to visiting our troops when they are on missions abroad carrying out the business of Canada. This minister has shown dedication of an exceptional quality.

In this particular case, he was on holiday. He was there at his personal expense. He was called back to work on short notice. He followed the rules, and those rules are much tougher than they have ever been in this country.

[Search and Rescue, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence was on leave at his own expense. He was called back to work on very short notice. Government aircraft were used in this case for government business. Every rule--much more exigent, demanding rules--for the use of government aircraft was followed. This is a government that has reduced the use of government aircraft by 80% compared with the previous government.

[Violence against Women, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in the run-up to Human Rights Day on December 10, Canada and the world are marking 16 days of activism against gender violence because it affects us all.

Our government is committed to addressing the problem of violence against women and girls. That is why the Government of Canada led the initiative for the creation of an international day of the girl. Our resolution, co-sponsored by 104 countries, will soon be before the UN General Assembly for adoption.

An international day of the girl would encourage people to put girls on an equal footing with boys. This would include equality before the law, the right to a life free from violence, as well as equal access to nutrition, health care, education and training.

I hope that these 16 days of activism will remind us that we can all take action today and all year long to eliminate violence against women and girls.

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today, as many others on the government side have done before me, to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-215.

We have no dispute with the statement by the member opposite that veterans have served this country with distinction, with courage, with selflessness and that not just this government but every government has a duty to look after them. However, the suggestion that we are taking benefits away, or that the current system somehow has been unfair or lacking in enhancement is simply wrong.

One of the core commitments of this government has been to modernize the Canadian Forces so that our country has the military it needs to deal with the 21st century security environment.

Three years ago we released the Canada first defence strategy. Members are very familiar with it. It is a 20-year framework to revitalize the armed forces based on a long-term predictable funding framework. We are investing in new and renovated infrastructure for men and women in uniform. We are purchasing new equipment for our navy, army and air force. We hear about these procurement exercises in this House every week, almost every day.

We are not just focusing on our efforts to support serving members of the Canadian Forces; we are also making sure that veterans receive the support they deserve because, as the member opposite said, we owe them a great debt. Their service has shaped modern Canada. It has given our country a respected and influential voice in world affairs. It has helped to make Canada one of the safest and most secure countries in the world. For this, we cannot ever fully repay them, but what we can and must do is make sure our veterans' particular needs and those of their families are fulfilled. The government understands this, which is why over the last few years we have undertaken a number of initiatives to stand up for veterans, to enhance support for veterans.

We have increased access to employment insurance for military families. We have funded new community war memorials across the country. Recognition is incredibly important to veterans. We have put into place a veterans bill of rights, the new veterans charter and a veterans ombudsman.

The bill of rights ensures that each and every one of our country's veterans is treated with respect and dignity. The charter provides veterans and their families with special programs and services to improve their quality of life. We have been very clear before the House and in committee about the investments this entails, some $189.4 million over the next five years, a $2 billion investment over the life of the program. The ombudsman, who operates at arm's length from government, plays a key role in raising awareness of the needs and concerns of veterans.

The government has also tackled issues related to veterans health and reintegration into civilian life.

There is now a one-time tax-free ex gratia payment to individuals with an illness related to the use of agent orange at CFB Gagetown, another issue that went unaddressed for too long. We have instituted a program that awards special financial recognition to Canada's atomic veterans.

We have launched the joint personnel support unit, a collaborative venture between National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. Twenty-four joint personnel support units and nine satellite units have been set up across the country to serve veterans, whatever their needs, especially the nearly 40,000 of them who served in Afghanistan and who are reintegrating into civilian life in Canada. They provide help to current and former CF members who want to get back to normal, and they ensure the services offered by National Defence and Veterans Affairs are coordinated and integrated.

A generous pension plan is one more way we are taking care of veterans. The government's contributions to the CFSA constitute around 75% of the total pension a member will receive, while the members' contributions account for around 25% of their pensions.

Part of each contribution goes to the Canadian Forces superannuation plan, or CFSP, while part goes to the CPP. Confusion sometimes results from the fact that benefits from the two plans are combined so that they blend seamlessly in order to meet the particular needs of Canadian Forces veterans. Let me explain to members what this means.

Unlike other Canadians, the vast majority of Canadian Forces members retire by the age of 60, before they become eligible for CPP. The CFSP contains a special provision designed to cover the gap between retirement and eligibility for the CPP.

When a member retires, the member immediately begins to receive the pension benefits payable to him or her under the CFSP. These consist of a lifetime benefit and a bridge benefit. The lifetime benefit continues from retirement onward. The bridge benefit, as its name suggests, is a special allowance only provided to veterans during the period between release from the forces and eligibility for CPP at the age of 65.

Once the member's CPP payments kick in, the bridge benefit ends. It ends because it has done what it was meant to do, by bridging the period between retirement and eligibility for CPP. In the vast majority of cases, a veteran's overall pension remains stable as the bridge benefit is fully replaced by the CPP.

Why do veterans not continue to receive the bridge benefit even after becoming eligible for CPP? Continuing the bridge benefit past 65 would ignore the added benefit provided by CPP after that age. It would undermine the intended purpose of the bridge benefit, which is to provide for the period between release and eligibility for CPP. In addition, pension plan contributions are currently based on the assumption that the bridge allowance will end at age 65 when CPP typically begins. This is what we can afford. It is fair. It is what the circumstances of service in the Canadian Forces require for us to do right by veterans.

The amount contributed by a Canadian Forces member and the government would have to rise significantly during a member's career in order for his or her bridge benefit to continue past the age of 65. This is a point that has not been fully reflected in the member opposite's comments. In return, Canadian taxpayers support veterans pensions to ensure that they enjoy a fair, stable and predictable retirement income throughout their lives.

The government believes this support for veterans is just and fair, but we also have a duty to be fair to taxpayers. Those who wish to see the bridge benefit extended beyond age 65 should remember that the money must come from somewhere: either member contributions would rise significantly, or taxpayers would supplement what is already a very fair and equitable pension practice.

The government stands behind serving retired members of the military. We are committed to making these investments. We have established new programs to support veterans. We want veterans to have a stable, predictable and equitable pension, but we are also committed to responsible stewardship of public funds. Bill C-215 would put a greater financial strain on serving members. It would increase their contributions and would require taxpayers to fund further the already generous pension benefit package enjoyed by Canada's veterans.

Our actuarial calculation is that the financial implications of the member opposite's bill would be a further $8.3 billion investment. This is not something that is provided for in our fiscal framework. It is not something to which the member opposite has spoken. It is not the right way forward.

Let me simply remind the House that this bill is not being proposed by the member opposite in a vacuum. It comes in the context of a mission in Libya that has just ended for Canada. It comes in the context of unprecedented investments in procurement, a veterans charter, provisions for which have been reflected in our budgets, one of which is scheduled for passage at third reading today.

I have some questions for the member opposite. Why stand in the House and raise false hopes on the part of veterans on this issue, when there is a fair, equitable, enhanced practice in delivering reliable pensions for Canadian Forces members? Why does he not support the real-life investments in equipment, training and human resources that the Canadian Forces require today, that this government has brought forward and that are the lifeblood of a successful army, Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy?

Why is the member standing for the sixth time to bring this bill forward while continuing to oppose almost all aspects of the agenda relating to the Canadian Forces, its equipment, its people, its procurement, indeed its veterans, when this is an agenda that Canada and Canadians want? The agenda the member opposite has proposed is unaffordable and unfair.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago in question period I said in this House, in reply to a member's question, that there was no plan to change the colour scheme on any of the airbus aircraft that the government possesses. I would like to be perfectly clear that there has been no decision in that regard and to ensure that the record reflects that additional clarification.

[National Defence, November 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, as we have said many times in the House, our plan to equip Canada's men and women, to protect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and elsewhere remains absolutely on track. The F-35 is the right aircraft for that mission in coming decades and we are glad that our allies are reminding their parliaments of the importance of this important technology that is creating jobs for Canadian companies across this country.

As the Defense Secretary of the United States said today in Halifax:

The F-35 is going to be an essential fighter that will help NORAD and will be the future in helping us with the security challenges that we face.

[National Defence, November 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, apart from being a complete non sequitur with the member's first question, the accusation made is completely unfounded. These changes would only happen in accordance with the regular maintenance cycle of National Defence and if they are cost neutral. These aircraft are repainted every six years and there is no current plan to change the paint scheme for any airbus aircraft.

[Business of Supply, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of funding for safe drinking water has come up repeatedly in many speeches. However, numerous reports, including some by the previous Auditor General just cited by the member opposite, state that that there are not yet clear standards for accountabilities for investment, and that water infrastructure itself sometimes faces a shortened life cycle because these facilities are not governed by the sustainable infrastructure and the accountability that should go with sustainable infrastructure.

I will read what we take to be a reasonable statement by the member opposite: “The Auditor General is very clear. Throwing money at the problem is not enough. You need structural reform. Unlike the rest of Canadians who actually have laws providing us...safe drinking water, none of that exists for First Nations peoples, and they're calling for very reasonable recommendations to move on restructuring how these services give some legal certainty....”

That is a statement made in June by member for Edmonton—Strathcona. I would like to know if she stands by that statement today.

[Business of Supply, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Assemblée des Premières nations du Québec et du Labrador passed a resolution to explore regulatory development and that it in fact reconfirmed the resolution in September of this year. The Atlantic Policy Congress passed a similar resolution.

Could the member for Palliser enlighten the House as to whether other first nations have been consulted in the development of this legislation in the way those two bodies have?