Rachel Blaney

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 18th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear to me that the member represents a rural riding like I do. Could the member speak to a motion I tabled in the House, Motion No. 53, which talks about an equitable and fair future. It talks about ensuring that resources are going out to rural and remote communities, especially as we know the climate is changing and the economy is changing and our resource-based economies need support to transition and change.

Does the member have any thoughts on that and would he support the motion I have tabled.

[Veterans Affairs, June 18th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, Roy is a veteran with nine years of service to our country. He left the military with an operational stress injury and applied to VAC for the remedy, but everything went wrong and it kept going wrong. Since 2012, this veteran has been trying to get help. Roy cannot sleep. He cannot hold a job. He has been traumatized by the very department that should be helping him. Roy's file requires a simple but meaningful fix, but his MP and the minister have failed him.

Will his MP and the minister finally stand up for Roy, or will they continue to ignore him, hoping he will go away?

[Governor General's Act, June 11th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and hold up the Muslim community across Canada. This past week has been an extremely painful one for all of the beautiful Muslim people in our communities, who are now afraid of what Canada has become. I pray that we are tireless in our work to make this country an even safer country. Everyone should feel safe to walk in their neighbourhoods in our country.

I am here to debate Bill C-271, an act to amend the Governor General’s Act. This proposed act would reduce the Governor General's salary to one dollar a year, remove the right to retirement annuity and amend other acts in consequence.

When I read just the title of the proposed act, I was actually interested in having a meaningful review of and discussion about the next steps Canada has to take to look at this and the realities we have seen over the last while. Sadly, the content of the bill is not a serious attempt to reform how the Governor General is selected, and it would, obviously, limit potential candidates to those who are independently wealthy. For me, having more wealthy people in seats of power is simply not a priority.

It is obvious that we need some changes. In the most recent situation with Julie Payette, there is no doubt that the Prime Minister failed to undertake basic due diligence in the vetting process. If this were a piece of legislation that spoke to creating clearer rules and guidelines around vetting, I would be very interested in the content.

While it is true that I personally feel that Ms. Payette does not merit the pension or perks because she really did fail in her duties, there should be a much better vetting process and a clearer pathway around consequences when a person does not serve this important role appropriately.

I believe the member and I agree that, instead of paying her for the rest of her life, the Prime Minister needs to send the message that Canada's public institutions will not be a safe haven for those who abuse their employees. I think that this is an important factor and needs meaningful action. However, this bill is not that.

Canadians know that the Governor General plays a role in the constitutional arrangement of our democracy. Our democracy is not perfect, but it is something that I will always fight for. There is no doubt that Canadians want the Prime Minister to take responsibility for the flawed process of appointing Ms. Payette. This flawed process has left taxpayers holding the bag, and I am not okay with that. I also believe that, for this specific case, we want an independent investigation into the allegations of harassment at Rideau Hall. In the long term, there needs to be a better plan to keep all of our workplaces safe.

The Prime Minister has been heavily criticized for making key appointments, such as the Governor General and other House officers, based on politics rather than merit. This is concerning for Canadians, and I have heard that from my constituents. When we look at key roles, I believe that Canadians want people who we can all have faith in. When politics and key roles of leadership in our country get mixed up, it makes it harder for Canadians to feel trust in these roles.

Now, because of a poor system, we are in a situation where the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is currently assuming the duties of the Governor General. Having the chief justice give royal assent on legislation that may one day come before the court does present a potential conflict, so this needs to be addressed. However, the solution offered in Bill C-271 does not provide the constructive criticism to get us to the next level, which obviously, this conversation needs to have.

Now, the Liberals have announced that they will have an advisory panel to help select the new Governor General. This approach for appointing a governor general was used by the previous Conservative government but was dropped by the Liberals after they were elected in 2015. While the Conservative panel was non-partisan, the Liberals have decided to appoint Liberal co-chairs, and this is clearly partisan.

Again, how do Canadians trust in a process if it is not fair, if they are not taken out of the partisanship realm and placed, as they should be, in the non-partisan one? This is a lot of taxpayer money being spent and, quite frankly, Canadians deserve better.

Some constituents tell me that they do not want a governor general anymore and that ties with the Queen of England just do not fit what Canada has become. This is a very worthy and important debate to have. However, again, the bill does not provide any meaningful space for this dialogue.

It is time for the Prime Minister to show Canadians that there are consequences for employers who create toxic workplaces and abuse their employees. Our former governor general should be disqualified from receiving a gold-plated pension and a lifetime expense account.

I hope in the future we have bills that provide information to address these key factors. When we debate in the House, we have to talk about solutions that will be long term and will not undermine our democratic process.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 11th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very important and powerful speech. I just want to acknowledge the member for Hamilton Mountain and his fierce work around addressing the issues that seniors face in our country. Right now, what we are seeing is a two-tier system for seniors. We have the “junior seniors” who get paid one amount, and then we have the “senior seniors” who get paid a bit more. I think that is absolutely unfair.

What are the member's thoughts on that?

[Petitions, June 11th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table this petition.

The petitioners are asking the Minister of Health to ban the commercial use of herbicides in the forestry industry in Canada, with the exception of addressing invasive species that are well documented. They express their concern that herbicides are being used by the forestry industry to prevent the natural return of the forest by adversity, which increases the risk of forest fires and, in turn, accelerates climate change, which risks the loss of economic value, and threatens communities and the overall health of Canadians.

[The Economy, June 11th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, let us be real. The Liberals offered $1,000 for CERB and it was the NDP who moved them to increase it to $2,000, so I would remind the minister of that.

In the next three weeks, the government is cutting the CERB support to Canadians across the country almost in half. I am asking the minister how he expects people to buy food, pay their rent and cover their bills on $1,200. That does not pass the test in Canadian cities.

The government gives billions of dollars to oil and gas companies and refuses to tax the ultrarich, but is fine to nickel and dime everyday people. Instead of working for the ultrarich and huge corporations, when will the government step up and actually—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 11th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding I represent many coastal communities. We have a long history of tourism-based industry and it has really been struggling. A large number of people who come to visit us are international. I really admire the strength in our communities and how they are marketing to a more local group to try to get people to come out.

One of the things that concerns me in this document is the fact that the funding and resources for those small businesses, those tourism businesses, is not long enough. It is not stable enough and does not provide the supports that they need to still be here so we can rebuild the economy. Could the member speak to that?

[Veterans Affairs, June 8th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his work on the veterans affairs committee as well. I deeply respect the work. I know, in our hearts, all of us want to see the very best for the veterans who have served our country.

My response is to ask when the money is going to be spent. There was $150 million over five years, and we still have not had any reports of a single cent spent. We have had spouses contact our office and ask about the veterans survivors fund. In fact, when it was first announced, we had a huge number of people contact our office asking what the application process would look like and wanting to identify who they were: the spouses who do not have enough resources, who married after 60 and are desperate for that fund.

We also had veterans calling us who had married after 60 who wanted to know the process because they care about their partners. They wanted to know that after they are gone, that person would be taken care of. There is still no clear pathway for an application process.

Our office is still waiting for answers, but more importantly, the spouses are waiting for answers. When will they get them?

[Veterans Affairs, June 8th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am so sorry to interrupt. The interpreters have identified that the wrong microphone is selected and they are having a hard time interpreting. That is the only reason I interrupted.

[Veterans Affairs, June 8th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I asked a question several days ago on the Liberals' broken promise to eliminate the marriage after 60 clause. Veterans and RCMP retirees are reaching out to me because this issue is still not fixed.

Just so Canadians understand, this clause was created in the early 1900s and it prevents the spouses of veterans and RCMP retirees, as well as any federal public servant, from receiving a pension after the death of their partner if they marry after 60. This clause is a relic that should belong in a sexist history. It is still known under the name of “the gold-digger clause”, as it was created to prevent young women from marrying older veterans to get their pension when they died.

It is still in place today. How is that for a feminist government? It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

What we know is that veterans' spouses in this category are often in poverty. In fact, some veterans stop taking part of their pension while they are living so their spouses will have something when they die, which can mean veterans and their spouses live in poverty for years so that if the spouses live longer they are not completely without an income.

Fundamentally, the federal government is punishing veterans for marrying after 60. This is sexist, as well as ageist. I know of one couple, for example, who were going to get married. COVID prevented the wedding from happening, and then the veteran turned 60. Now what do they do?

The government's plan is to study this, study this very small population of largely impoverished women so the government can find them. I appreciate the importance of studies. However, this small population is in desperate need. Veterans are worried about the future of their partners.

In the 2015 and 2017 mandate letters to the ministers of Veterans Affairs, the PM was very clear and instructed the ministers to eliminate the marriage after 60 pension clawback. Sadly, this mandate was not found in the most recent 2019 or 2020 mandate letters.

The Liberals promised to eliminate the clause in the 2019 campaign, but instead created the veterans survivors fund in the 2019 budget, with $150 million over five years. This funding was panned to many organizations, including the National Council of Veteran Associations, the Armed Forces Pensioners' Association, and the RCMP Veterans' Association. To date, not one penny of the fund has been spent.

It is very clear that this issue for a relatively small population is just not a priority for the government. The government could eliminate this clause, have an application process for the spouses, and this issue would be resolved. Instead, the spouses of retired RCMP officers and veterans who married after 60 continue to remain poor.

When will the government fix this? How long will it take? VAC has funded two studies on this issue. The first is through the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research and was completed recently by UBC professor Dr. Eric Li. In his executive summary, he states that he was able to include only seven survivors and three veterans in his study. Even with that small sample size, the primary recommendation is that VAC reconsider the criteria for inheriting a veteran's pension.

The second study is through Statistics Canada, which sent its preliminary results to VAC one month ago. The results were supposed to be made public by summer 2020, but now we are being told to wait until 2022.

Was the government expecting these studies to produce a result other than the need to eliminate the marriage after 60 clause? Everyone, and I mean everyone, who is affected by this clause has called for the government simply to eliminate it. Even the Prime Minister wanted it to happen, so why the delay?