Laurie Hawn

[April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is an apples and oranges statement. The simple fact is Gander is served right now by rotary-wing SAR with the Cormorant aircraft. The fixed-wing SAR bases are known. Everything is open. There is no one who has been excluded or frozen out. That is simply a false statement.

As I said, we have a capability in mind. Whatever the aircraft is, it has to deliver a capability. That is being refined now especially with the help of the study by National Research Council. Once that is refined it is going to go to Public Works and Industry Canada. We are going to move forward on that. Anyone who feels that he or she has an aircraft or a capability that will meet the specifications will be more than welcome to submit.

[April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the question from my hon. colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

To situate my remarks, let me first say a few words about the project. In line with the Canada first defence strategy, the government stands by its 20 year commitment to the renewal of the Canadian Forces, and that includes fixed-wing SAR. We plan to acquire up to 17 aircraft to meet search and rescue operational and training requirements of the Canadian Forces in that area.

In terms of the acquisition project itself, let me first say that the Department of National Defence has a priority to deliver the best equipment to our men and women in uniform while finding the premium value for Canadian taxpayers.

We need aircraft that has the capability to fulfill the tasks at hand.

For this reason, National Defence, Public Works and Government Services, and Industry Canada completed consultations with industry on fixed-wing search and rescue in July of last year. The requirements for this project have also been reviewed by an independent third party to further ensure they meet the highest standards. We are talking NRC.

In the fall of 2009, the government engaged NRC to conduct an independent review of the requirements of the fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. The NRC released its report on March 12 and the recommendations made in the report are being reviewed. There were no specific recommendations that the member was talking about. It was a wide range of items that NRC looked at and it had various recommendations in each of the areas. It was a very helpful report.

The department's project office, in conjunction with Public Works and Government Services Canada as well as Industry Canada, is now working on a recommendation for the government which will point the way forward in acquiring new aircraft. We expect that recommendation to be ready later this year. Once this process is completed, we will, as always, move forward in a transparent and accountable way toward a contract for an aircraft that meets our operational requirements. It is not that we have an aircraft in mind; we have a capability in mind because that is the important thing.

Evidently this is a time-consuming process not only because it calls for the highest technical standards, but also because it involves several departments. In the meantime, the Canadian Forces will work with industry to ensure that sufficient spare parts are available until the Buffalo fleet is retired.

I have flown all over Canada in my air force career. From my CF-18 cockpit I have spent a lot of time looking at vast expanses in the north, the uninviting waters of the Beaufort Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. I have even spent a fair bit of time over the hon. member's beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador flying out of bases like Goose Bay and Gander. For all the charm of the countryside and the beauty of the people of that province, there are some pretty desolate areas in our tenth province.

I was lucky enough never to have to give an aircraft back to the Queen, but I do understand the importance of the best possible search and rescue capability. It is critical to all Canadians and others who may rely on this service and it is critical to those brave men and women who deliver the service. That is why we have to be careful to get this right. It has taken longer than I would like, but I have learned that this is the norm around here.

Nevertheless, our government is committed to moving this project ahead as soon as possible and no one will be excluded from an evaluation, except by not meeting the requirements for this no-fail mission.

I am confident the hon. member and all Canadians will be very happy with the final result.

[Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I joined the Minister of National Defence at the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital in Edmonton to announce a program that will make a huge difference in the quality of life of our wounded soldiers and civilians alike.

Our government has provided $1.5 million to purchase a computer-assisted rehabilitation environment, CAREN, system at the Glenrose. This system immerses patients in a virtual reality simulator that uses a moving platform and surrounding visual system. It will enhance rehabilitation treatment for a wide range of patients, including amputees, spinal cord injury victims and those with post-traumatic stress disorder. It is state of the art and will be one of only two systems in Canada.

Besides caring for our troops, this will give the Glenrose incredible opportunities to collaborate with hospitals across Canada and around the world. Everyone wins.

I am very proud to know the people at the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital who have already done so much for our brave men and women of the Canadian Forces. They are truly the gold standard for Canada in rehabilitation medicine.

I am honoured to be part of a government that goes the extra mile for our troops and all Canadians.

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore proposes restoring Bill C-201 to its original form, introduced last year after debate here in the House and lengthy consideration by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Nothing has changed since the standing committee agreed to remove the proposed clauses. There are some issues that do deserve discussion, and the disability issue is one. However, as for the rest of it, I am sorry. I cannot support the hon. member's motions for the same reasons as before.

This does not take away from the deep respect and immense admiration we have for the Canadian Forces and the RCMP. I am proud of my own service and my comrades, and I am just as proud of the men and women in uniform today. These military personnel and their families make many sacrifices and, in return, the Government of Canada must take care of them. The Canadian Forces pension plan is there to look after our veterans. The system is flexible and generous, which is exactly what the Canadian Forces members deserve.

In 1966, members of the Canadian Forces were paying 6% of their salaries into their pension plan or CFSA. When the Canada pension plan was integrated with the CFSA, as were all other public service pension plans, CF members continued to pay 6% of their salaries into pension benefits. The only change was that 1.8% now went to CPP and 4.2% went to CFSA.

Upon retirement, a member receives 2% of his or her best five-year average salary per year or partial year of service. The member pays 25% of the cost of that pension and the public pays the other 75%.

Members of the CF typically retire well before age 65. When they collect their CFSA upon retirement, it consists of two parts. The larger part, approximately 70%, is the lifetime benefit. That is the amount from CFSA the member will continue to receive until he or she dies. The smaller part, approximately 30%, is termed the bridge benefit and serves to bridge the pensioner's income at the full 2% per year of service until age 65 when most people start collecting CPP.

At age 65, having done its job, the bridge benefit ceases. In most cases, the amount of CPP that commences will be at least equal to the amount of the bridge benefit that ceases, thus giving the pensioner a consistent income flow throughout retirement years. That is the way it is designed. That is the way it works.

This will not be the case, though, under two circumstances. If the member does not earn taxable income between CF retirement age and age 65, he or she will not have contributed to CPP for that period. In that case, the amount of CPP eligibility will be less and it will likely be less than the bridge benefit that ceases at 65. In most cases, working or not working is a decision the member makes.

Canadians can draw CPP as early as age 60, with a reduction of .5% per month before age 65. If someone took it at age 60, his or her total reduction would be 30%. That is the reduced amount, plus indexing, that the pensioner will receive from CPP for the rest of his or her life. A CF pensioner taking CPP at age 60 will, in effect, be receiving both the bridge benefit and CPP for that five-year period. That is a good thing, but he or she must be prepared for a reduction in overall benefit when the bridge benefit ceases at age 65.

I will repeat, those are the only cases where a person is liable to receive less from CPP than he or she is getting from the bridge benefit. The total pension benefit continues to be indexed and the decision to take CPP early rests with the member.

CFSA and CPP are working exactly as set up and paid for, and they provide for a consistent indexed level of retirement income for CF members and RCMP. The essence of the argument in Bill C-201 is that CF and RCMP pensioners should be able to collect both the bridge benefit and CPP beyond age 65. This would amount to stacking the CFSA lifetime and bridge benefits and CPP, amounting to approximately a 30% increase, even though we have not paid for a stacked pension plan. It is as simple as that.

The cost to implement Bill C-201, and my hon. colleague mentioned part of it, would be prohibitive, with a one-time cost, according to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, of $7 billion and annual costs of $110 million, and increasing. Plan members and Canadian taxpayers would have to bear the burden of the increase in future contributions.

Are plan members prepared for additional deductions in pay? A soldier making $50,000 a year would see an increased annual pay deduction of $1,000. Would it be fair to ask taxpayers to pay the increase? The government has a responsibility to our service members, but we also have a responsibility to Canadian taxpayers to carefully manage the money they entrust to us.

Proponents of Bill C-201 suggest that the annual cost of implementation could be covered by diverting CF members' EI contributions. Annual EI contributions by CF members amount to $54 million per year, which covers less than half the annual cost. In addition, approximately 3,000 CF members use EI benefits every year for maternity leave and parental leave, and those important benefits would be denied. We care too much about our military families to do that.

Our government has acted. With the Budget Implementation Act 2006, the government approved an amendment that changed the calculation of the lifetime benefit in the recipient's favour. Therefore, the dollar amount reduced at age 65 will be less, resulting in an increased long-term pension benefit.

The very well organized advocates of Bill C-201 propose a number of what are essentially red herrings. They point to the lack of consultation and input by CF members in 1966. The CF is not a union and does not get to vote on pay and benefits. The leadership of the CF makes decisions for the members on their behalf, and that is not going to change.

There is no doubt that communication of the changes was sporadic at best, but since then, efforts have been made to inform our veterans and plan members and answer their questions. There is a website, informative publications, a 1-800 number and briefings upon approaching retirement. Ultimately, plan members are responsible for learning about and understanding their respective pay and benefits.

Some suggest that MPs have exempted themselves from what they call a clawback of the bridge benefit. I am glad the member did not bring it up, but it is on all of the websites. MPs come and go at all ages and do not collect their pensions until age 55, unlike CF members who can collect pensions years earlier. MPs do not collect any bridge benefit from or to any age; therefore, there is simply nothing to claw back. Being an easy target is part of the life of an MP, but it is simply intentionally misleading in this case.

Many point to petitions, as my hon. colleague did, signed by 100,000 or 125,000 people in support of Bill C-201. Anybody will sign a petition that holds an implied promise of more money. I do not suggest that anybody signed in bad faith; they have simply been misled. I have spoken to many former CF colleagues who knew the issue was bogus but signed anyway. Why not? While there are many former senior officers who have signed the petition, there are a great many more who have not signed. These include many former chiefs of the defence staff and leaders who are acknowledged as being strong supporters of the troops. They know it is simply not a legitimate issue.

The last time we debated the bill, I received hundreds of angry emails and phone calls, and I expect there will be more to come. Some send me their CFSA statements pointing out that at age 65, their CFSA would be reduced by x dollars per month and that they would lose indexing on that amount. What they do not send me is their CPP statement that says they will receive x dollars per month and that it will be indexed.

Some propose emotional arguments about how members of the CF have served and sacrificed themselves and their families. That is true, and I can attest to that from personal experience. Canadians respect that sacrifice and are grateful for it, but Canadians serve voluntarily. They are well paid, well treated and get excellent trades training and experience for future employment. I can also attest personally to the relevance and the generosity of the Canadian Forces superannuation plan, and retirement benefits are generous by any contemporary standard. The CF and RCMP plans are set up exactly the same way as all other public service pension plans and most other defined benefit pension plans, such as teachers plans. Where would the dominoes stop and at what cost if the bill were to be implemented?

With respect to our pension plan, our benefit is based on our investment. Members are receiving the full benefit from that investment and the pension plan is working the way it was intended.

Our government has taken our obligations to our veterans very seriously. We have implemented a veterans' bill of rights, veterans' charter and veterans' ombudsman, brought in pension income splitting and many other tax benefits for seniors, addressed the agent orange and atomic vets issues and a host of other points. In fact, we have invested about $2.1 billion more on our veterans than the previous Liberal administration did.

While we have done much for veterans and serving members, there will always be more to do and more to be considered. The disability issue is in fact a legitimate issue, and one that should be discussed, but it is lumped in with the majority of folks, the 96,000 that my colleague talked about, that have nothing to do with that issue.

Unfortunately, spending an inordinate amount of time on things like Bill C-201 distracts from examining those issues. It is a difficult issue for many, there is no doubt. I can tell hon. members it is no fun being the poster boy with my face on legion dart boards across the country.

We have all had to make tough decisions in our lives and careers and we all try to make them in the most honest and informed way possible.

As I said at the beginning, nothing has changed. Notwithstanding all of our respect and gratitude for our veterans, the bill is simply unrealistic, not founded on fact and unfortunately we cannot support it.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Québécois, not Quebec.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the entire motion. It is quite short and to the point.

The simple fact is that Quebec's interests have been represented by the House of Commons. Its seat count has increased from 65 to 75 over the years. As Canada's population changes, as demographic changes take place, it is necessary to readjust the number of seats in the provinces, to preserve fairness and to preserve the equality of votes for every Canadian.

It is a very simple formula of rep by pop. It is followed around the world in virtually all democracies that I am aware of. This is not taking anything away from Quebec. We are preserving what Quebec has. We are merely recognizing that other parts of the country are growing more quickly than Quebec, and Canadians in those parts of the country deserve to have equal representation with their member of Parliament.

For me to have 130,000 constituents and for somebody in Quebec to have 105,000 constituents would necessarily result in a little bit different level of service. It is a matter of providing fairness and equal service to Canadians regardless of where they live.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that, to the greatest extent possible, each Canadian's vote should carry equal weight. That is the principle behind Bill C-12. It would be violated by passage of the hon. member's motion today.

We want to restore the principle of representation by population to the House of Commons. Every few years, of course, it is going to get a little bit out of whack because some provinces grow and some provinces do not. Hopefully no province shrinks, but the rate of growth is obviously different. It is simply a matter of fairness and a matter of making sure every Canadian's vote carries equal weight, whether that Canadian is from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec or wherever.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to today's opposition day motion, which has been moved by the member for Joliette.

The issue before the House today is fundamentally important for our democracy, and that is representation in the House of Commons.

All hon. members and indeed all Canadians can agree that representation in this House must be fair. This means two things: it must be fair for every province in the federation and it must be fair for all Canadians regardless of the province in which they live. Our government introduced the democratic representation act on April 1 to bring fairness back to the people's House.

In a country as vast and diverse as ours, finding that balance is not always easy. Competing equities must be considered to ensure fairness. Nevertheless fairness for all provinces and for all Canadians must be the overriding objective. That is why the motion put forward by the member for Joliette is so misguided and why I urge all members to vote against the motion today.

I will focus my remarks on the historic representation of Quebec in the House of Commons and provide some background on the distribution of seats in the House. This will provide better context for our debate and demonstrate that the member's motion is, in fact, unnecessary.

In contrast, Bill C-12, the democratic representation act, strikes the right balance for the democratic representation of all provinces and all Canadians.

At Confederation, the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons was paramount. It was this principle, combined with equality of reasonable representation in the Upper House, that made the union of Canada in one dominion possible.

The Constitution Act of 1867 reflected the principle of representation by population, or rep by pop as it is commonly known. It included a formula for readjusting seats in the House every 10 years.

That formula allocated 65 seats to Quebec and allocated seats to other provinces in proportion to their respective populations. In other words, representation in the House was rep by pop, with the average riding population in Quebec used as the standard to determine the representation of other provinces. The Confederation formula also included protection against a loss of seats if a province's population were to rapidly decline.

Although the seat allocation formula has changed over time, the following two elements of the formula have remained stable since Confederation. The first element is that there is an allocation of seats based on population. It is pretty simple. The second is that there is protection against the loss of seats for provinces whose populations are in relative decline. That is also pretty simple. That formula has never provided a guaranteed percentage of seats for any single province.

I cannot imagine that anyone in this House disputes that smaller provinces may need more seats than may be justified by their populations, to help enhance their representation in this House, and we have heard some examples. However, by definition, this means that other provinces will have a reduced representation.

Again we are faced with a question of fairness. Is it fair for smaller provinces to be under-represented or for a larger province that already has a significant proportion of seats to accept some under-representation to enhance the representation of smaller provinces?

I love P.E.I. for many reasons. It is a beautiful, historic province. It has tremendously friendly people, who were wise enough to elect a great representative in our fisheries minister. I envy P.E.I. MPs. In Edmonton Centre, I have as many constituents as the entire population of Prince Edward Island. Each P.E.I. MP has about 35,000 constituents. In round numbers, I have 130,000. I really envy them because if I had that few constituents, I would know them all on a first-name basis.

It is the same with the seats in the north, obviously granting its size.

But there are some common sense reasons there could be some disparity in the number of seats. P.E.I. is an example and the north is another example.

Under the current formula, P.E.I. gets three of its four seats from seat protections rather than population size. According to a strict rep by pop formula, P.E.I. is over-represented in this House, but I believe we could all agree that this is fair in a House of more than 300 members.

The same rationale does not apply to a province that already has 18 times as many seats as P.E.I. and the second largest number of seats in the House. Yet this is exactly what the member for Joliette would ask us to support.

To look at it another way, Quebec is the second-largest province in the country, and yet the populations of its ridings are much smaller than the medium-sized provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Is it fair that it takes an average of at least 17,000 more Albertans to elect an MP from that province than it does to elect an MP from the province of Quebec?

Now to return to the terms of the motion before the House today, the member for Joliette suggests that Quebec members of Parliament must hold at least 25% of the seats in this House. Members will recall that such a 25% guarantee was proposed as part of the Charlottetown Accord in 1992.

Let us remember that Quebec's share of the provincial population at that time, according to the 1991 census, was slightly over 25%. Yet the Charlottetown Accord was unsuccessful and was ultimately rejected by the people of Quebec. The demographic reality has changed significantly since 1992, and it continues to change. That makes a 25% guarantee even more unrealistic. According to the 2006 census, Quebec's share of the provincial population has fallen to slightly less than 24%. Based on currently available population projections, its share will fall further to 23.2% in the 2011 census and further still to 21.6% by the 2031 census.

That could change. There is no question about that. At the same time, we are experiencing rapid and significant population growth in other provinces, which are prevented from gaining seats that recognize their growth. To support the motion before the House today would further penalize these growing provinces and further undermine the principle of fairness that must underscore representation in the House.

Let us look at one final example. If the current formula is not changed, after the 2011 census, British Columbia will only have about half the seats Quebec has, even though it will have close to 60% of its population. Looked at another way, Quebec will have twice as many seats as B.C., but its share of seats will be greater than its share of the provincial population. In contrast, B.C.'s share of seats will be less than its share of the population by an even larger margin. As a result, an MP from B.C. would be called upon to represent 15,000 more constituents on average than an MP from Quebec.

To accept the member for Joliette's motion, more than 75 seats would have to be given to Quebec to give it 25% of House seats, widening these disparities even more. I am not sure any Canadians, whether they are from British Columbia, Quebec or any other province, would consider this fair, and I do not believe that any member could think so either. Under Bill C-12, even after the adjustments that are suggested, Quebec will still have fewer constituents per riding than the growing provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

We can all agree that fairness should be the cornerstone of representation in the House of Commons. For that representation to be fair, seats in an elected assembly must be based primarily on population and reflect the demographic realities of our country. Compromises must also be made to ensure effective representation for all Canadians across Canada. Bill C-12 would balance our desire to bring the House closer to the fundamental democratic principle of representation by population while continuing to protect the seat counts in slower-growing provinces such as Quebec.

Simply stated, the motion before the House today would take us even further from that core democratic principle. That is why I oppose the motion and I urge all other hon. members to do the same.

[Afghanistan, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my hon. colleague is misstating the facts. The NDS official in question did not propose murder. He was being dramatic, I assume.

The simple fact is that we did not turn over that prisoner. We took him back to the hospital in Kandahar, operated on him, made him healthy and turned him back over to the NDS. That is what we do. We look after our Taliban prisoners better than anybody else, better, frankly, than the Taliban looks after their own. We take them into our hospitals and we make them as well, as we do with the rest of the Afghan people. That is what we are doing across the country there. We are raising everybody's level.

[Afghanistan, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are talking about allegations. The top level military advisor he was talking about is a translator.

The simple fact is that the Military Police Complaints Commission is hearing a lot of evidence from a lot of people. What it does is it investigates all allegations, analyzes the facts and the evidence and, if warranted, it lays the appropriate charges.

We are working with our Afghan allies in Afghanistan to bring their level up to something, not approaching Canada's level, unfortunately, but to a higher level than it has been in the past.