LaVar Payne

[Last Post Fund, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to reaffirm our government's full support for a program that is so important to Canadian veterans and their families.

I am also pleased to say that the federal burial fund program is working, that every year it is helping the families of veterans through a profoundly difficult and emotional time in their lives. In the past year, the funeral and burial program assisted more than 1,300 families. We were there for them, and they laid their loved ones to rest with the dignity and respect Canadian veterans deserve. Such numbers reflect a program that is achieving what it was designed to do, a program that is honouring veterans, who have done so much for our country, and assisting their families.

This debate on Motion No. 422 will also provide our government with an opportunity to demonstrate the many different and significant ways we are supporting Canada's veterans and their families, including the funeral and burial program.

A lot has been said about the funeral and burial program, but these are the facts. The funeral and burial program helps to provide a dignified funeral and burial for all veterans who die as a result of an injury suffered in service to our country. It is also there for the families of those veterans who were in financial need when they passed away. Motion No. 422 can propose all the changes it wants, but it cannot change the facts.

Before I take a closer look at the motion, I would like to place this debate within a much wider context. I would like to begin my remarks by reminding all members of something we have learned very early in life: actions speak louder and words. Canadians remind us of this every day. They do not want the rhetoric and empty promises. What they want and expect is that we will deliver results on things that matter most to them.

I am proud to say that the Government of Canada is delivering. If actions truly matter more than words, then the actions of our government are loud and clear. We are here for the Canadian veterans and their families. We are here for them in ways that, arguably, match or much surpass anything Canada has done during any other time in our country's 146-year history. This is not boasting, but by almost any measure, we have set new standards in veterans' care.

Members do not have to take my word for it. All they have to do is look at the federal budgets, because they lay it all out in black and white, year after year. In the coming year alone, as outlined in our latest main estimates, the Government of Canada is planning to spend almost $785 million more than in 2005-2006, which was the last year before the new Veterans Charter was implemented.

I could list the many things that this extra funding has supported: the creation of an Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, the establishment of a veterans bill of rights, the expansion of our veterans independence program and the restoration of benefits for Canada's allied veterans.

Still, those tell only part of our story. Our record spending on veterans benefits, programs and services is only one side of our dual approach, because we are also spending smarter. That is what the minister's cutting red tape for veterans initiative is all about. By streamlining the way we do things, simplifying our policies and introducing new technology, we are reducing the cost, actually serving veterans better and faster in more modern and convenient ways.

We are constantly reviewing every program, every service and every benefit to make sure we are meeting the needs of Canada's veterans and their families.

The funeral and burial program is a perfect example. We took the time to conduct a thorough review of the program. We took the time to listen to veterans and their families, and with budget 2013, we have taken action.

Our government is proud to be making the funeral and burial program even better. We are proud to be more than doubling the maximum reimbursement for funerals from $3,600 to $7,376. At the same time, we are covering the actual cost of burials. We are proud to be simplifying the program for veterans' estates.

We are doing all of this at a time when the funeral and burial program is already one of the most comprehensive programs of its kind in the world, because it casts a wider net to help more families in many more ways.

I believe all Canadians can and should be proud of what we are doing as a country to support and honour our veterans, proud that we are demonstrating our nation's gratitude and respect in very meaningful ways. Canada's veterans have earned that. They deserve it, and our government is proud to be delivering it for them, our nation's heroes. I want to thank all of the Veterans Affairs staff and the Canadian Legion across the great riding of Medicine Hat, for they have supported our veterans. They are working for veterans and helping us to deliver what those veterans need.

[Brooks Bandits, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to stand in this place and express my excitement that the Brooks Bandits have advanced at the RBC Cup National Junior A Championship for the first time in franchise history. The Bandits earned the right to represent the west at the national championship after defeating the Yorkton Terriers of the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League 1-0 at the Crescent Point Energy Western Canada Cup.

I would like to congratulate player Mark Logan for having won the Player of the Game Award. I would also like to congratulate the head coach, Ryan Papaioannou, as well as assistant coach, Brent Gunnlaugson, for their continued support and leadership.

The Bandits are no stranger to success, as the team was ranked the number one in the Central Junior Hockey League for 21 consecutive weeks, dating back to October 2012.

Five teams will compete in the 2013 RBC Cup, including the Brooks Bandits. It will be held in Summerside, P.E.I. from May 11 to 19.

I would like to congratulate the Brooks Bandits and I wish them all the best: Go Bandits, go.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians access to safe drinking water is taken for granted. This is not the case for many first nations communities. Bill S-8 is crucial to ensuring first nations have the same health and safety regulations and protections concerning drinking water and waste water treatment that are currently enjoyed by other Canadians.

It has taken seven years to get to this point, seven years of continuous dialogue with first nations, including formal engagement sessions and implementing measures to accommodate the concerns of first nations. The legislation before Parliament today is the result of hard work and collaboration. Now is the time for action.

Could the minister explain how time allocating Bill S-8 would help fulfill this long-standing legislative gap and enhance access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water for first nations communities?

[The New Democratic Party of Canada, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I headed back to my riding this past weekend and met with constituents, it was clear that the economy remains at the front and centre of their concerns. For the past seven years, Canadians have placed their trust in our government to keep taxes low and to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This is what we have done, and this is what we will continue to do.

Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for the leader of the NDP and his party. The leader of the NDP and his party plan to raise $20 billion from a shameful job-killing carbon tax. The leader of the NDP has said that of course he has a cap-and-trade program that “will produce billions”.

Hard-working Canadians cannot afford a $20-billion job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries and electricity. Canadians cannot afford the risky tax-and-spend socialist policies of the NDP.

[Petitions, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present the sixth petition from my riding.

The petitioners ask the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination. They ask that all members of Parliament support that.

[Grasslands Regional Family and Community Support Services, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I stand in the House to speak of the coming together of a group of organizations in Brooks and other communities in the wake of the XL Foods recalls last year. The City of Brooks with the County of Newell commissioned a report on how a number of organizations worked in coordinated fashion to deliver relief to those workers who were affected. The detailed report was completed by the Grasslands Regional Family and Community Support Services.

Community groups and people came together to deliver things like basic necessities such as food and clothing to the affected workers. Others offered employment support, either by helping employees find other opportunities or by offering resumé services. I would like to personally thank all those who got involved, either by volunteering their time or by making donations to special funds to support workers. They are to be congratulated for supporting their neighbours.

I wish the employees of JBS Food in Brooks and their families all the best.

[Privilege, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour to rise today in this place as the democratically elected member of Parliament for Medicine Hat. I rise to speak on the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Langley. Our Westminster parliamentary system is without a doubt the best in the world, as we all know. It is not perfect, but if we look at all of the other democratic systems, ours is the best.

Obviously, here in Canada, our system has evolved over time. Starting in the early 1980s, it became the responsibility of the party whips to submit lists to the Speaker of those who would ask questions before each member is able to make an S. O. 31 statement before question period. That seemed to make sense at the time because Parliament was growing and the Speaker was getting busier. That is completely sensible. I do not think we could find any member who would disagree with that, and I am certainly not either.

What is unfortunate is that some members are denied the ability to speak if what they are going to say is unacceptable to the powers that be. I was elected by the people of my constituency to represent them in Ottawa. When the majority of my constituents feel strongly on one particular issue, I feel it is my duty to speak freely in the House about that issue. In fact, our handbook, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009, clearly stipulates what my rights are as a duly elected member of the House.

Allow me to quote from O'Brien and Bosc, 2009, which states:

By far, the most important right accorded to Members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.

Therefore, we know that freedom of speech in this place is key to us being able to carry out our task of being good representatives of the people who elected us.

It goes on to state:

Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make. This freedom is essential for the effective working of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is for you to decide whether the privileges of the member for Langley had been breached. O'Brien and Bosc further states:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member's ability to fulfil his or her parliamentary responsibilities.

I realize that some have tried to make out of this issue more than what it is. I can assure the House and, indeed, all Canadians that there is nothing antagonistic or rebellious about these interventions. It is a question of the rights of members, like the member for Langley, who wish to speak out on issues that are important to his or her constituents. Is that not what the role of a member of Parliament is? His or her role is, indeed, to be their voice here. To suggest that voice should be muted because an issue is considered too controversial is bizarre, to say the least.

This is the Parliament of Canada. I do not believe there are issues here that are too controversial for members to debate. That is why we are here. If we do not do it as democratically elected officials, then who will? That is why I stand here today to lend my voice and wholehearted support not only to the member for Langley but other members of Parliament who have stood to speak out on this issue. The member for Langley should be allowed to speak. I believe he was dropped from the speaking order because the powers that be decided that what he was going to say was just too controversial for them and that goes against the point of our system.

What started as a way to make it easier for the Speaker to manage who stood up to speak has now become a way to control the message. I believe it has gone too far and that is why I stand here today to lend my support to my colleague from Langley, as well as all others who have risen to speak on what they feel is an injustice.

As one of my colleagues pointed out previously, we need not look outside the Westminster parliamentary system for clues on how we can do things better. Let us go directly to the source that we inherited the system from. In the United Kingdom, government backbenchers rise from time to time to ask very tough questions of their own government.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by asking you to look into this matter at your earliest convenience and thank you for giving me this opportunity to make my case.

[Petitions, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present another petition on behalf of the citizens of the Medicine Hat constituency urging that the House of Commons and all members of Parliament condemn sex selection gendercide.

[Petitions, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the fourth petition on behalf of my constituents, that the House condemn discrimination against females through sex selection pregnancy termination. They ask all members of Parliament to support Motion No. 408 and condemn sex selection.

[Petitions, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a third petition, with hundreds of signatures, as I have in the past, that the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy terminations; and that all the members of Parliament support Motion No. 408 to condemn sex selection.