Judy Foote

[Ethics, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in the face of Peter Penashue's acceptance and expenditure of almost $50,000 in illegal donations, the Conservative government is attempting to cover up the true nature of his track record as the member of Parliament for Labrador.

As I speak, Mr. Penashue is campaigning in Labrador to regain the seat he disgraced. Meanwhile, Elections Canada continues its investigation of Mr. Penashue's unlawful election campaign, which could result in Mr. Penashue's being banned from running for the next five years.

Let me address some of the incorrect statements made by the Conservative government as it tried to hide the fact that Mr. Penashue had to cheat to get elected.

First, the Conservative government falsely claimed that Peter Penashue was essential to the establishment of thousands of jobs and the Muskrat Falls project in Labrador. The truth of the matter is that federal funding for the Muskrat Falls project was promised in 2011 by the Liberals and the Conservatives, before Peter Penashue was even elected.

Second, the Conservatives have falsely credited Peter Penashue with the paving of the Trans-Labrador Highway, a project that was primarily funded by the previous Liberal government. Between 1995 and 2005 alone, the Liberal government contributed almost $340 million to the Trans-Labrador Highway, and an additional $17 million was invested by the province. The fact is that during Peter Penashue's tenure as MP for Labrador, the Conservative government provided only $42.5 million in federal funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway. This is almost a 90% decrease in funding from the contribution levels established by the previous Liberal government.

Third, the Conservative government wrongly insists that Peter Penashue is responsible for increasing search and rescue capabilities in Labrador. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. However, Peter Penashue is responsible for failing to stand up for search and rescue services in Newfoundland and Labrador, even after the tragic death of young 14-year-old Burton Winters.

The Conservatives incorrectly claim that a new Griffon helicopter was added to the search and rescue facility in Goose Bay under Mr. Penashue's leadership, increasing its fleet from two to three helicopters. However, this contradicts reality. Under the previous Liberal government, Goose Bay was equipped with three Griffon helicopters. The Conservative government reassigned one of these helicopters to Canadian assistance in Jamaica under the condition that once missions were completed, it would return to Goose Bay. Now that this helicopter has been returned to its rightful place in Goose Bay, the Conservative government's continued claim to have added a new helicopter to the Goose Bay fleet is a blatant untruth intended to give the illusion that it responded to the tragic death of Burton Winters.

Against the advice of experts, Peter Penashue failed to oppose the closure of the vital maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's. Since the closure of this facility by the Conservative government, emergency calls have been diverted to Italy, information has been misconstrued and lives have been unnecessarily put at risk. Even as the Liberal Party warned of the imminent dangers associated with this closure, Peter Penashue and the Conservative government failed to reverse their irresponsible decision.

While we continually asked the Conservative government to acknowledge its mistakes and its inadequate delivery of search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador, Peter Penashue failed to represent his constituents regarding search and rescue even once in the House of Commons. In fact, even as a Conservative minister used a vital search and rescue helicopter as a limousine, Peter Penashue remained silent.

I ask again, given Mr. Penashue's cheating record, how do we know that he will not attempt to do the same thing in this by-election?

[Last Post Fund, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, whether or not the $7,000 figure is sufficient, it is unfortunate, I am told that the government did not consult with the Last Post Fund when it determined that figure. That is unfortunate, indeed. I do know that of course for serving Canadian Forces members who die, anywhere from $13,000 to $17,000 is provided.

The issue for me is to do whatever we can to increase the amount available to families so that ensuring our veterans receive a dignified funeral and burial is what this motion is all about.

Again, we are talking about things that happened 20 years ago. I am interested in the veterans of today. I would like to think that all of us in this House of Commons are concerned about our veterans and their families.

[Last Post Fund, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, is it not just like the Conservatives to suggest that by voting against the economic action plan, we would be voting against veterans, when nothing could be further from the truth? We are giving the Conservatives the opportunity to single out this issue, to vote for Motion No. 422 so that we do not have to do an injustice to our veterans. By voting for Motion No. 422, we could all be supporting our veterans.

Is it not just like a Conservative colleague to go back 20 years and suggest that what the Liberals did was a disservice to our veterans? In fact, according to a 2011 report by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, a committee controlled by a Conservative majority including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in 1995 the estate exemption was decreased “...in an effort to return the program to its original intent; in other words, to provide burials for those who could not afford them”.

[Last Post Fund, April 18th, 2013]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Last Post Fund is currently underfunded and excludes deserving veterans causing unnecessary stress and hardship to families of veterans, and that the House call on the government to do the following: (a) accept the recommendations of successive Veteran Ombudsmens’ calling for expanded and enhanced financial access to the Last Post Fund; (b) accept the advice from the Royal Canadian Legion made in the years 2008, 2010, and 2012 calling for expanded access and financial support for the Last Post Fund; (c) accept three year old advice from departmental officials to expand and enhance financial access to the Last Post Fund; (d) review the Last Post Fund’s current burial assistance cap of $3,600 with the goal to establish a standard consistent with burial assistance provided to current members of the Canadian Forces; (e) review the “means tested” standard applied to the Last Post Fund that currently excludes many veterans with the goal to improve and lower the qualification standard to access the Fund; and (f) provide stable long term funding to the Last Post Fund with consideration given to establish a financial escalator tied to the Consumer Price Index.

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Random—Burin—St. George's since 2008, it is, indeed, a privilege to introduce my second private member's motion in the House of Commons. My first motion addressed a serious issue, which was the need for additional search and rescue services in Newfoundland and Labrador following the crash of a Cougar helicopter that claimed 17 lives. Motion No. 422 is very important as well and aims to enhance the Last Post Fund to ensure that all veterans receive the dignified funerals and burials that they deserve.

First, I thank my constituents, including over 700 active Canadian Armed Forces personnel and many more retired veterans whose continued support enables me to present this important motion today. I also thank all other veterans and active Canadian Forces members. As well, I thank the Royal Canadian Legion for its continued service and the Veterans Ombudsman, who first and foremost continues to defend the interests of all veterans. Special thanks goes to the Last Post Fund, which has served veterans and their families since its inception in 1909, and to Jean-Pierre Goyer, executive director of the Last Post Fund, for his outspoken advocacy. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the Liberal Veterans Affairs critic and member of Parliament for Charlottetown for his continued dedication to veterans from coast to coast to coast.

The advocacy of all helped in the formulation of my motion. The Last Post Fund is an important program, with a goal to ensure that no eligible veteran is denied a dignified funeral and burial, as well as a military gravestone, due to insufficient funds at time of death. Unfortunately, the Last Post Fund is far from ensuring that all veterans in need receive a dignified funeral and burial because the program is forced to apply outdated eligibility criteria.

There are many cases in my riding and throughout the country where families of veterans who have been either denied by the Last Post Fund's outdated criteria or did not receive sufficient assistance were unable to pay for the total cost of a proper burial. In many of those cases, to help the families, the funeral home will cover the balance of the cost. Simply put, it is shameful for the government to treat our veterans and their families in this way and to expect in some cases small businesses to absorb the additional costs when families of veterans are unable to do so.

In drafting Motion No. 422, I listened intently to suggestions on how to improve the Last Post Fund from various stakeholders, including the Veterans Ombudsman, the Royal Canadian Legion, and the Last Post Fund administration. I sincerely appreciate the endorsement of the Royal Canadian Legion and thank the many legion branches throughout the country that have expressed support for Motion No. 422.

Prior to the budget being released, I wrote to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Veterans Affairs asking that the funding for the Last Post Fund be increased and that the financial criteria be updated to reflect today's realities. It goes without saying that I was pleased to see the finance minister respond to my request that the financial assistance provided by the Last Post Fund be increased and that the amount available to qualifying veterans and their families went from $3,600 to $7,376 in budget 2013. However, that will not help those who still have to deal with outdated eligibility when it comes to qualifying for assistance in order to ensure a veteran is able to be buried with dignity.

Needless to say, I am disappointed the government chose to ignore the recommendations to expand access to the Last Post Fund and update the financial eligibility criteria. As I said before, if the Conservatives would agree to table this change in a separate stand-alone piece of legislation free from contentious cuts to services that many veterans also rely on, I am confident they would find unanimous consent to pass it immediately.

According to the Royal Canadian Legion, “While the federal government has provided an increase to the funeral grant, the recent announcement does not address the accessibility to the program or its extension to low income Canadian Forces Veterans”. The reality is that by failing to expand access to the Last Post Fund, the government missed an opportunity to bring equality and fairness to all veterans, but it is not too late.

Together we can fix this problem. Taking care of our veterans is not a partisan issue, it is our duty. There is no clearer message we can send than to stand behind our veterans, many who spent their military careers standing up for us, and we can vote yes to Motion No. 422. Conversely, there is no clearer message to veterans that we do not support them than by voting no, since this is a stand-alone single issue measure, unlike an omnibus bill or budget that might combine several conflicting issues.

The Veterans Ombudsman released his first report entitled, “Serve with Honour, Depart with Dignity” on February 19, 2009. In his report, the Veterans Ombudsman made seven key recommendations in response to direct testimony from administrators of the Last Post Fund who described the challenges some of the mourning families found when burying their loved ones.

The Veterans Ombudsman recommends:

That the ceiling for Veterans’ funeral and burial expenses be raised to reflect industry standards and that an indexing formula be introduced to ensure that the rates keep up with the economic increases. That the administration of funeral and burial benefits be simplified by using a discretionary lump sum approach for reimbursable expenses rather than the present itemized approach. That Veterans Affairs Canada extend the Funeral and Burial Program to all Veterans. That eligibility related to the Funeral and Burial Program be extended to include Veterans who suffer from multiple pensioned conditions where the total aggregate suffering and weakening of their body may contribute to the cause of death. That the estate exemption (surviving spouse) for the means test be increased and aligned with present-day income and cost levels. That Veterans Affairs Canada engage in a proactive multi-faceted communications campaign to raise awareness of the Funeral and Burial Program. That Veterans Affairs Canada be more flexible and allow for extraordinary circumstances to be considered when the established timeframe is exceeded.

The seven recommendations in that report calling for the expansion and increased access to the Last Post Fund were subsequently reissued by the current Veterans Ombudsman. Motion No. 422 seeks the long overdue implementation of these suggested changes.

Last January, on the same day that I introduced my motion, the Royal Canadian Legion and its more than 330,000 members began a letter-writing campaign calling on the Conservative government to make three specific changes to the Last Post Fund so that families of all veterans can access the financial assistance they require to ensure their loved ones receive a dignified funeral and burial.

First, they asked that the $3,600 rate provided by the Last Post Fund be increased. Second, they asked the government to grant equality to all veterans and stop excluding veterans who served after the Korean War from the Last Post Fund. Finally, they asked that the financial eligibility criteria be updated to reflect current income levels and the fragile economic climate.

I am pleased to report that Motion No. 422 addresses all of their concerns. Despite the Conservative government's own departmental officials and countless stakeholder organizations' recommendations to enhance access to the Last Post Fund, the government has failed to act.

Motion No. 422 also requests a review of the Last Post Fund's burial assistance cap to bring it in line with the burial assistance provided to current members of the Canadian Armed Forces which was included in the recent budget. I welcome the increase to this cap, but as I said earlier, increasing assistance without expanding access does nothing to ensure all veterans receive the dignified funeral and burial they deserve since existing outdated eligibility criteria remain in place.

From 2006 to 2012 under the Conservative government, over 66% of applications, which translates to 20,147 veterans, were rejected. That is unacceptable. The current eligibility requirements applied by the Last Post Fund exclude all veterans who served post-Korean War from receiving any type of federal funding for a dignified burial and funeral. This means that veterans who fought in Afghanistan are not eligible to receive financial aid from the Last Post Fund.

In the words of Jean-Pierre Goyer, the Executive Director of the Last Post Fund, “What is the difference between modern-day veterans that we send to Afghanistan” and those who fought before them?

The financial eligibility criteria are outdated because of inflation and the current economic reality. The Last Post Fund states that in the case of a veteran with a spouse or dependent children, to qualify, their combined net asset value must be $12,015 or less. This figure no longer reflects current income distribution levels within Canada, and must be updated.

That is why I am calling on the House and the government to support Motion No. 422, which would be in the best interests of our veterans and their families.

[Taxation, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government is levelling hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on everyday items used by Canadian families. The reality is that middle-class families cannot afford to pay more for necessities, such as playpens, carriages, bicycles, tricycles, school supplies, and the list goes on, just because of a Conservative tax.

When will the Conservatives cancel this new tax on Canadian families?

[Duke of Edinburgh Award, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sarah Erikson-Gaudon, a young woman from Lourdes in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.

After completing a rigorous program which included community service, skills development, physical fitness, a residential component and a strenuous four-day expedition to the Rocky Mountains, Sarah was awarded the prestigious gold Duke of Edinburgh Award, the highest achievement in the program. Sarah's activities as an army cadet and high school athlete helped her complete much of her program. She volunteered in the community, participated in provincial marksmanship competitions and served as senior drill commander of her corps and as a senior member of the Honour Guard at Camp Argonaut in New Brunswick.

Sarah is a fourth-year psychology student at Grenfell College, Memorial University. She credits the Duke of Edinburgh program with developing her academic and leadership skills and deepening her passion for helping others.

I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing Sarah-Erikson Gaudon, a remarkable young woman who is a shining example of our exceptional youth.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI): (a) in each year since 2005 until present, (i) how many total employees did MAI employ, (ii) how many ferry crew positions were assigned, (iii) how many dockside positions were assigned, (iv) how many front desk/customer service personnel were assigned, (v) how many management positions were assigned; (b) for each year since 2005 until present and for each employee listed in each year, (i) from where was the position located, (ii) has the position been relocated, (iii) what was the rationale for position relocation, (iv) did the employee deal directly with customers, (v) was the position considered management, (vi) what was the salary or hourly wage, (vii) was the position on a ferry or on the shore; (c) how have federal budgetary cuts affected MAI’s employment levels; (d) what was the actual cost recovery compared to the projected cost recovery for each year since 2005; (e) was there any consultation before raising fares by four percent effective April 1, 2013, and, if so, what were the results of the consultation; (g) how many ferry trips have been cancelled or rescheduled in each year since 2005; and (h) following a ferry cancellation or rescheduling, when services resume, how many times have the standby vessels been used to assist in transporting backlog passengers and vehicles?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to the Community Development Fund and the Grand Bank Development Corporation (GBDC): (a) how much funding in total was allocated in 1991 to the GBDC under the Community Development Fund and was the funding received in a lump sum payment; (b) what organization administers the GBDC fund; (c) has the GBDC fund been exhausted and, if not, how much is left in this fund; (d) what is the annual operational cost of the GBDC; (e) what is the current status of the GBDC; (f) are there plans to change the GBDC status in the near future and, if so, (i) what are the details of any documentation stating the rationale for the change in status and, if not, (ii) will the GBDC be allowed to continue operating, in the interest of fulfilling its mandate, until such time as the initial funding on the Corporation’s balance sheet reaches zero; (g) should the GBDC cease to operate, what will happen to the unspent fund originally allocated under the Community Development Fund and the revenues being generated by money it has invested since the fund was established; (h) what is the status of the Community Development Fund allocated to (i) Trepassey, (ii) Gaultois, (iii) Botwood, (iv) South Side St. John’s; and (i) have any of those communities exhausted their funding and, if so, (i) were they permitted to continue their mandate until their funds were exhausted and, if not, (ii) was the unused portion of their funding given to another organization or agency to administer?

[National Defence, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, funny how a byelection in Labrador can bring out the imaginary Conservative promises. In 2005, the member for Central Nova promised a rapid reaction battalion and UAV squadron for Goose Bay if his party won. Eight years, three elections and a defence plan and there is still nothing. The words “Goose” and “Bay” do not even appear in the Conservative government's defence strategy.

Where are the promised jobs for Goose Bay? Why would anyone in Labrador believe the Conservatives this time?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I agree that the program should have continued.

It is the type of program that Canadians have looked to and respected, and they understand how important it is, particularly when we talk about the environment and how important it is to ensure that we do sustain our environment and that we take the measures that are right, and not find ourselves in a situation where there is nothing happening.

If it were up to the government, there would be no discussion of the environment. The facts and figures that are put forward are so convoluted that we cannot even see the forest for the trees.

We are finding ourselves in the situation, as members of an opposition, of trying to get a handle on what the government is doing with respect to the environment, and it is very hard to do because the government is not at all forthcoming when it comes to sustaining our environment.